SSPX poised for formal schism?

[TheresaLS]

There may come a time that the “progressives” and the “cafeteria” Catholics will be judged as harshly…just a thought.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

There may come a time that the “progressives” and the “cafeteria” Catholics will be judged as harshly…just a thought.

Maybe. But I doubt that will happen in the MSM, who loves them.

 

[promultisguy]

It is only speculation, but if one looks at the situation before SP came forth, about the only place one could attend Mass in what Benedict called the Extraordinary Form was to an SSPX chapel.
/ Not true Elizabeth. In order for Catholics to find a Latin Mass other than one at an SSPX chapel, many people sought and found a priest in good standing who would agree to hold the Latin Mass in homes or rented hotel halls. This is what happened within my diocese until the bishop agreed to let us meet in a church bldg. On an international basis the Una Voce International held together countless such groups who could network together. A diocese in Campos, Brazil held strictly to the old Mass and even today under Rome’s approval still do. They never celebrated the novus ordo. Some of our traditional people have held on to the old Mass ever since the Bugnini reform of 1969. The same occured in countless places.

By setting forth SP, he accomplished two things: 1) he made the EF more available to those who wished to attend in that form (while acknowledging his own opinion that it would be limited - see his accompanying letter), thereby effectively “defanging” the SSPX on the issue while acknowledging their desire for the EF as legitimate, and 2) because he sought reconciliation with the SSPX, gave the appearance of working with them by doing so.

I don’t see where the SSPX has been defanged at all. They are spreading across the globe pretty rapidly. Their ordinations are not counted on one hand as are those in many of our dioceses. As churches close in France and Germany and other western nations, the SSPX Masses are flourishing. I have heard that if a Catholic wants to go to Mass in France he/she can only find SSPX chapels in many regions. Pope John Paul II, in Ecclesia Dei opened up the potential for Catholics who adhered to the old Mass. He did envision that the numbers would be small and limited. In years to come it became clear that large home schooled familys preferred the traditional Mass in bringing up their children. Pope Benedict recognized how many wanted to raise their children with this Mass while diocesan bishops were still trying to hold it back. Summorum Pontificum changed things when the Pope took the authorization for the old Mass away from them and further encouraged the bishops to cooperate with the need and desire of traditionalists. I don’t plan to get into a quarrel as to which Mass is better. I think it depends upon where you are and what you prefer. I wouldn’t, however, limit the Holy Father by saying that he sought reconciliation with the SSPX to “give the appearance of working with them” so as to defang them as you implied.

It is clear that Benedict wanted reconciliation. It is also clear that it was going to be on his terms, not the SSPX’s, as was subsequently shown.

Obviously. After all the Pope makes the rules. It is likewise true that the SSPX set the terms upon which they would agree to ‘full communion’ if you will. The Pope did not accede to the terms and the SSPX decided they could not continue without them. There are no winners here, only losers. Church unity suffers under these conditions.

However, by releasing SP, he effectively found a way to stop movement of laity to the chapels, and the subsequent exposure to their stances other than as to the EF itself.

Again, refer to my response to this above.

So as to your question, no, the release of SP was not an attempt to “turn the clock back”; Benedict was a peritus at Vatican 2 and was definitely not in the camp which attempted, prior to and at the beginning, to derail Vatican 2 or force it to fit within the confines of the strongly conservatives. It was an acknowledgement that there were others, besides the followers of the SSPX, who wished to have the EF available to them; they were seen as a minority and the question of whether or not the EF had been abrogated had never been thoroughly vetted.

I never said anything about “turning the clock back”. If you want to learn what happened with the direction of the Council I suggest you get a copy of “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber” for a few insights as to what happened to the agendas set forth by the Holy Father and the Roman Curia. Pope Benedict as Cardinal Ratzinger indeed was a peritus at the Council and had great hopes for it. Not all went well in the years after the Council. Read Pope JP II in his apostolic letter Dominicae Cenae: “I would like to ask forgiveness in my own name and in the name of all of you, venerable and dear brothers in the episcopate, for everything which, for whatever reason, through whatever human weakness, impatience or negligence, and also through the at times partial, one-sided and erroneous applications of the directives of the Second Vatican Council may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and the veneration due to this great Sacrament”. Need I say more? Many of us were pained by the things the Pope referred to.

If you have any doubt as to how the traditional movement has grown, consult the Coalition in Support of Ecclesia Dei. We have grown pretty fast over the past several years. Our Masses are full of young children who join with the adults in singing of the peoples parts and the glorious Catholic hymns. Peace.

 

[ProVobis]

the fact that Latin was the vernacular for what? the first 600-700 years of the Church.

Vulgar Latin was the vernacular in the early centuries. From Vulgar Latin descended the Romantic languages we know today as Spanish, French, Italian, etc. The Church adopted Cicero’s Latin in its liturgy, much of it recognizable to the Latin Mass goers today.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Vulgar Latin was the vernacular in the early centuries. From Vulgar Latin descended the Romantic languages we know today as Spanish, French, Italian, etc. The Church adopted Cicero’s Latin in its liturgy, much of it recognizable to the Latin Mass goers today.

Thanks

 

[janeway529]

the fact that Latin was the vernacular for what? the first 600-700 years of the Church.

Actually, Latin wasn’t formally used until about 350 because Pope St. Callistus didn’t know or understand Greek, which was the language of the Liturgy at the time.

 

[ProVobis]

Actually, Latin wasn’t formally used until about 350 because Pope St. Callistus didn’t know or understand Greek, which was the language of the Liturgy at the time.

That would have been about the time the Roman Canon, the heart of the Mass, was written.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Roman_Canon

 

[otjm]

He has now placed an obstacle in the way of the Franciscans of the Immaculata celebrating the traditional Latin Mass.

A) This is off topic (read what the moderator posted); B) you have your facts wrong; C) this has been treated thoroughly by Brother JR, a Franciscan, in another thread.

My next topic here may upset some but I will express my thoughts anyway. As you all know, Bishop Fellay of the SSPX and Pope Benedict had numerous discussions over the past several years with regard to the possibility of ‘regularizing’ the SSPX. It was Benedict’s great desire to bring unity to the Church. He has communicated with the Orthodox, the Anglicans, and other Christian communities, all in the hopes of reunification. He grew too old to fulfill his ardent desire. As I understand it he had hopes to study and pray about the conflicts that held back the SSPX from inclusion. At one point he seemed willing to review certain statements and directives contained in some if the sixteen documents of Vatican II for compliance with accepted Church doctrine.

There are several places where contradictions to established doctrines occur. Some of us, though we are not graduate theologians see many of the same conflicts or contradictions.

And right there you have the crux of the problem. People who are not graduate theologians continue to argue with the Magisterium of the Church.

Like us, the priests and bishops of the SSPX long for unity with Rome but they also insist that the doctrinal contradictions be resolved.

You need to do a bit of research; the answer came down about a year ago. Rome answered. The answer? There are no doctrinal problems. The SSPX is wrong.

Rule 1: The magisterium of the Church is the final authority on faith and morals. Rule 2: when you think the Magisterium is wrong, go back and read Rule 1.

Some on this thread write that the SSPX has tried to push the Holy Father around and demand that he goe their way or take the highway. From where I come from this is not the intention of the SSPX at all. They simply refuse to accept what they see is contrary to the Catholic Faith they know and love. I often rub elbows with their laity. Some attend our ‘approved’ Mass on occasion.

See above, Rule 1. Rome has made it clear that the position of the SSPX bishops (and presumably, their priests) is wrong. End of discussion.

As our new Pope settles down into his work, it now appears that he is not interested in continuing dialog with the SSPX in any meaningful way. It is said that he is not going to be focused on doctrinal issues. If this is true, I am saddened since current Catholic practice has wandered away from fundamental teachings such as those touching on ethics and morality especially, but the detrimental effects of 50 years of experimentation with the Liturgy. The words of Pope Pius Xth rings in my ears: “Wanting to reconcile the Faith with the modern ‘spirit’ leads not only to a weakening of the Faith, but to it’s total ruin”.

And telling the Magisterium they are wrong on a matter of doctrine is also a short road to total ruin.

You are a bit early in this pontiff’s reign to be deciding that he is not interested in pursuing matters or reconciliation with the SSPX. While he has made it a primary commitment to shake up the Curia, it remains to be seen if he will shake up the dicastery which is primarily involved in the discussions (as it was during Benedict’s reign). If he does not make changes to that dicastery, it would indicate he is pleased with what they have done and are doing. And if he shakes it up, that is not necessarily an indicator he does not want reconciliation’ that would depend on what the results were.

 

[otjm]

I never said anything about “turning the clock back”. If you want to learn what happened with the direction of the Council I suggest you get a copy of “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber” for a few insights as to what happened to the agendas set forth by the Holy Father and the Roman Curia. Pope Benedict as Cardinal Ratzinger indeed was a peritus at the Council and had great hopes for it. Not all went well in the years after the Council.

I was a young adult when the council was in session, and we were reading the documents as they were released; you are not telling me something I didn’t figure out 30 or 40 years ago.

 

[pnewton]

Maybe it would be more accurate to say that the electors pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but not that the pope is chosen by the Holy Spirit.

In this day and age, I think this difference has no impact. There are too many good, holy cardinals that are truly striving to follow the Holy Spirit for this difference to matter. Yes, I believe the Holy Spirit choose Pope Francis. To think otherwise would be to dispair of the spiritual state of the leaders of the Church.

 

[pnewton]

Some folks on these threads seem to think that everything that comes out of the mouth of the Pope is the word of God. Not so! Every Pope is different. The current Pope Francis seems to take exception to the decree of the previous Pope Benedict, Summorum Pontificum.".

I would be slow to assume anything about what goes on in the mind of anyone else. Pope Francis could completely restrict the use of the older form of Mass. Yet, he has not spoken any ill against it. It is not right to make generalizations based on a limited case or two.

Yes, you have the right to be disappointed, and it is to be expected. I am sorry that all cannot have more access to the Mass where they most find spiritual growth.

 

[Lormar]

In this day and age, I think this difference has no impact. There are too many good, holy cardinals that are truly striving to follow the Holy Spirit for this difference to matter. Yes, I believe the Holy Spirit choose Pope Francis. To think otherwise would be to dispair of the spiritual state of the leaders of the Church.

I disagree. That would throw free will out the window. The Holy Spirit suggests, He doesn’t constrain anyone from using their free will so that they do His bidding.

But this is off topic. In the meantime, I am going to do more research on this topic.

 

[Tomdstone]

A)And telling the Magisterium they are wrong on a matter of doctrine is also a short road to total ruin.

He said that Pope Pius X said: “Wanting to reconcile the Faith with the modern ‘spirit’ leads not only to a weakening of the Faith, but to it’s total ruin”. Do you disagree with Pope Pius X?

 

[Brendan_64]

He said that Pope Pius X said: “Wanting to reconcile the Faith with the modern ‘spirit’ leads not only to a weakening of the Faith, but to it’s total ruin”. Do you disagree with Pope Pius X?

And that statement is made on the assumption that reconciling the faith with the modern ‘spirit’ was the purpose of Vatican II. On what authority is that assumption made?

 

[Mark121359]

That’s actually not accurate. This has been pointed out time and again by recent Cardinals. I’m not referring to the SSPX, obviously. Popes are not literally “picked by the Holy Spirit.” It’s as Lormar has described above.

And it appears that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI agrees. In 1997, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was asked if the Holy Spirit chooses the Pope and he replied; * “I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope…I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.” *…Then he added this; * “There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!” *

Peace, Mark

 

[otjm]

He said that Pope Pius X said: “Wanting to reconcile the Faith with the modern ‘spirit’ leads not only to a weakening of the Faith, but to it’s total ruin”. Do you disagree with Pope Pius X?

Why do you ask? Vatican 2 did not set out to reconcile the Faith with the modern 'spirit", nor did it do so. To say otherwise to the last part of that sentence is simply to engage in post hoc, ergo propter hoc, and we have far too many people engaging in that logical fallacy already. As I noted, coincidence is not causality.

Let my put it another way - whatever drove Father Charles Currin, and the other 80 or so theologians to publish their ad directly contradicting Humanae Vitae was not because of anything whatsoever stated in the documents of Vatican 2, nor ws it caused by an alleged misreading of the documents, or any such alleged confusing or ambiguous or contradictory language or statements - and that is just one example.

 

[otjm]

And that statement is made on the assumption that reconciling the faith with the modern ‘spirit’ was the purpose of Vatican II. On what authority is that assumption made?

Certainly not on the published statements of John 23 or Paul 6.

 

[otjm]

I am a discerning and in fact advanced reader. You apparently thought you were much clearer than you were.

Oh, I think I was clear enough.

From my reading I think there are many problems in South America, perhaps even as many as in North America, but far different.

Which was why I indicated the problems which most people are most familiar with are those of North America and Europe. Thank you for making my point.

To you. Your perception may be no less “skewed” than theirs is. I wonder if that has occurred to you.

My perception is skewed, if Rome’s perception is skewed, since my perception is based on their perception.

Whether you or I want to accept this fact, they may in fact be “more likely to drift into schism” since the election of Pope Francis, given that whatever you find “clear and unequivocal” about Pope Francis’ statements is perhaps not what they find clear and unequivocal, or, to put it another way, what is clear is something that may harden, not soften, their position regarding the orthodoxy of the modern Church, which is why they drifted into a movement in the first place.

I don’t think they are going to drift any further. I will qualify that with the point that I don’t think that ordaining another bishop without Rome’s approval is drifting further, but I do think it could be the trigger that would cause Rome to declare them in formal schism. There could be other triggers, or it could be that the matter is already heading that way, or it could be that Rome, as it has done for the decades since this started (their ordination), will continue to be patient. I would hope for the last point.

Again, to you and your perception, it’s all “truly simple” and perhaps you believe you are the only “critical thinker” with regard to their position? They would beg to differ with you that they should just Get With the Program. (so to speak) One need not be sympathetic to them or one of them to understand the logic of their position, despite lamenting their position and preferring unity.

The logic of their position, if one accepts what the Church taught before Vatican 2, is illogical.

And no, I most certainly do not think I am the only “critical thinker”; there are any number of people who have come to the same conclusion. I am just sitting in the gallery watching them.

I think at some point you’re going to have to accept that not everybody who is a seasoned and tested critical thinker agrees with you.

No, I don’t have to accept that. What I have to accept is what the Church teaches.

Rome has not sat there as if cowed by the enormity of brilliant dogmatic exposition by the SSPX bishops. Starting with a Pope known for his grasp of Canon law, then seconded by one considered one of the brighter stars as a philosopher, and then followed by one considered one of the brightest and best theologians if not the brightest and best currently alive, all three have repeatedly, directly, distinctly and resoundingly said that the 4 bishops are in error, and are in disobedience.

Those who consider themselves to be seasoned and tested critical thinkers who disagree with Rome are either emotionally aligned with the SSPX (that is, reacting in horror to the issues the Church is facing) and responding without analysis, or are so driven by a value system that they cannot separate out from that system to look at facts. I do not suggest they are bad people, in the least. Being wrong about causation is not a moral issue. It is an error in sorting through facts to determine causation.

I am in agreement with the SSPX bishops that the faithful (that is, those baptized Catholic) and in a terrible status/situation/position, with 75 to 95% of baptized Catholics not attending Mass each week. I disagree that Vatican 2 was or is the source, and I also disagree that the OF is the source. I disagree that Vatican 2 made any statements that are not consonant with the 2000 years of teaching of the Church. Or the 1930+/- years of the Church, if you will. What happened in France after Vatican 2, for example, was radically different than what happened in Poland, where the documents of Vatican 2 were studied and implemented without the troubles that occurred, for example, in France, or other European countries, or the US and Canada. If the documents were so terribly wrong, how could such a thing happen?

It happened because a) the documents are not wrong, and b) the circumstances in Poland in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s were far different from the secularism, materialism and open abuse to God given sexuality that was occurring in the other countries. In Poland, the Faith was directly challenged by the Communists. In the other countries, the challenges were far more subtle, far more effective, radically different, and faith was already sliding in the mid 1950’s, and continued on the merry downhill slope afterwards.

 

[Tomdstone]

I am in agreement with the SSPX bishops that the faithful (that is, those baptized Catholic) and in a terrible status/situation/position, with 75 to 95% of baptized Catholics not attending Mass each week. I disagree that Vatican 2 was or is the source, and I also disagree that the OF is the source.

The SSPX argues otherwise. Can you prove your contention?

 

[otjm]

The SSPX argues otherwise. Can you prove your contention?

Try Benedict’s acceptance of the letter written on his behalf by the dicastery last fall/winter, which the SSPX have rejected; plus his statements concerning the matter.

I don’t need to be a theologian, to accept the directions and the teaching on the matter which B16 has given. All I need is to remember what I was taught in grade school, prior to Vatican 2, concerning the Holy Spirit protecting the Church from error when it teaches officially on faith and morals. And Vatican 2 was teaching about faith, officially - even the SSPX acknowledge that much, They say it erred. I say it didn’t.

I am not a sociologist, but I have been around long enough, and observed enough, to see that the idiocy that was rampant in the late 60’s and the 70’s didn’t come out of the documents, and was not sourced from the documents. I heard the and read what they were saying; it was painfully obvious that a significant number of theologians, and priests, and some bishops, decided that the Church needed to be revised with no reference to the past. V2 never even hinted at that. We were reading the documents as they came out while I was in school. Even as young college students, we could see that what was being proposed did not source in that; and many of those promoting such radical changes didn’t even say the documents sourced their wooly ideas. Even then they were using the “spirit of V2” - this isn’t some recent phrase.