SSPX poised for formal schism?

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please do not bring up the problems of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate again. People are passing along misinformation, despite the fact that the friars themselves have said:

1. They are happy with the situation.
2. Pope Benedict began the inquiry, not Pope Francis.
3. This is an internal affair of their congregation and is none of our business.

The friars have asked that we stay out of this, not comment on this and not spread rumors. We are impressing upon everyone to respect their request and their privacy.

It is consistent with Catholic tradition and custom that the bishops, diocesan clergy and laity stay out of the internal affairs of a religious institute. Let’s abide by tradition.

 

[Tomdstone]

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.

What other Church or ecclesial community has experienced the huge increase in marriage annulments since Vatican II? Going from 10 or so in 1930 to 60,000 or so per year recently seems like a big increase to me which has not been seen in other ecclesial communities. How many other ecclesial communities have gone through bankruptcy in their dioceses?

 

[pnewton]

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.

Then I will elucidate if it comes up on another thread rather than go on and on. Suffice it to say, that I do not agree with all conclusions posted here, but do agree with all the quotes posted here. I there is an underlying issue of faith that is lacking in the SSPX. Remember that Martin Luther had faith in God, if that is defined as direct faith in God, but having no faith in anything God is doing because everyone in the Church is so corrupt as to cripple God from doing anything in the Church. At some point, the SSPX will have to face that ever eternal balance of freewill, that we have the promise of Jesus that the Gates of Hell will not destroy this Church founded on the Petrine Rock.

 

[Brendan_64]

At some point, the SSPX will have to face that ever eternal balance of freewill, that we have the promise of Jesus that the Gates of Hell will not destroy this Church founded on the Petrine Rock.

And that is the nub of it. The SSPX claim to speak for the Church, while at the same time they are, in practical terms, denying the authority of the rock upon which the Church is built. The SSPX act as if they, not the Pope, are the rock.

 

[Lormar]

Then I will elucidate if it comes up on another thread rather than go on and on. Suffice it to say, that I do not agree with all conclusions posted here, but do agree with all the quotes posted here. I there is an underlying issue of faith that is lacking in the SSPX. Remember that Martin Luther had faith in God, if that is defined as direct faith in God, but having no faith in anything God is doing because everyone in the Church is so corrupt as to cripple God from doing anything in the Church. At some point, the SSPX will have to face that ever eternal balance of freewill, that we have the promise of Jesus that the Gates of Hell will not destroy this Church founded on the Petrine Rock.

My posts to you have nothing to do with the SSPX so I am at a loss as to why you are bringing them into the discussion regarding the Holy Spirit and the election of a pope.

 

[pnewton]

My posts to you have nothing to do with the SSPX so I am at a loss as to why you are bringing them into the discussion regarding the Holy Spirit and the election of a pope.

I am abandoning the off topic stuff and leaving that one incomplete. The SSPX is the topic, so I returned to that out of respect for the rules, using the a common thread (no pun intended) that unraveled. That’s all.

 

[otjm]

What other Church or ecclesial community has experienced the huge increase in marriage annulments since Vatican II? Going from 10 or so in 1930 to 60,000 or so per year recently seems like a big increase to me which has not been seen in other ecclesial communities. How many other ecclesial communities have gone through bankruptcy in their dioceses?

To begin with, I am not following as to why you are asking me these questions. It is not that I am unwilling to answer - I am very willing - but they are completely off topeic. The topic of the thread is the purported unwillingness of the SSPX to accept the minimum requirements, from Rome, to reconcile. That has nothing to do with annulments. So also bankruptcies.

If you with to start a new thread concerning annulments, please pm me as I will be willing to join in there. However, the moderator has already stepped in to say we need to stay on topic; answering your questions could result in a closing of this thread.

 

[Origen52]

Whenever I hear about the SSPX, I always wonder what Pope Pius X would say about the whole thing. I may be wrong, but as a good catholic, I think he would probably be appalled that anyone is using his writings to attack the last five popes and the magisterium of the church. With their love of latin, members of SSPX must know the phrase “Non serviam” and it’s meaning. Bless pope Benedict, he tried very hard to bring them back to the church.

 

[commenter]

The Church does not exist in a vacuum; it is influenced by the world around us. About 125 years ago there was a powerful movement in society in general called “modernism” which impacted atheists, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and others in the West. It was not attributable to any Church council or changes in the liturgy. Protestants and Jews were unable to resist it much, because they had no Pope or Magisterium. Catholics were able to resist it for the most part, because we were united under Pope St. Pius X, and other popes.

Modernism in the Catholic Church went underground after WWI, in some religious orders and universities, but it was alive and well in non Catholic media and academia. The resurgence of modernism (through all society, not just the Catholic Church) in the 1960s was not caused by Vatican II or changes in the Mass, but by the secularization of society and media in Western Europe and North America. The popes fight modernism, but their influence is weakened by groups that oppose the Magisterium, for whatever reason. Countries outside the influence of the Western secular media, such as Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa, implemented Vatican II, but resist modernism.

It is misleading to divide Catholics into “liberal” and “conservative”. There are those united to the Magisterium and Pope Francis - and others who are not.

 

[otjm]

The Church does not exist in a vacuum; it is influenced by the world around us. About 125 years ago there was a powerful movement in society in general called “modernism” which impacted atheists, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and others in the West. It was not attributable to any Church council or changes in the liturgy. Protestants and Jews were unable to resist it much, because they had no Pope or Magisterium. Catholics were able to resist it for the most part, because we were united under Pope St. Pius X, and other popes.

Modernism in the Catholic Church went underground after WWI, in some religious orders and universities, but it was alive and well in non Catholic media and academia. The resurgence of modernism (through all society, not just the Catholic Church) in the 1960s was not caused by Vatican II or changes in the Mass, but by the secularization of society and media in Western Europe and North America. The popes fight modernism, but their influence is weakened by groups that oppose the Magisterium, for whatever reason. Countries outside the influence of the Western secular media, such as Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa, implemented Vatican II, but resist modernism.

It is misleading to divide Catholics into “liberal” and “conservative”. There are those united to the Magisterium and Pope Francis - and others who are not.

I certainly agree with your last statement.

What is frustrating is that we continue to drag out modernism as the whipping boy for all our sundry problems. It is something that started in 1850 - 1875 or so, went on for a period of time and we then entered post-modernism. It appears we may have moved past that too. We also have materialism, secularism, and a wide list of other “isms” which have impacted Catholics, as well as non-Catholics. One in particular, hedonism, comes to mind. We can also throw in anti-authoritarianism, or whatever you might like to call the movement of the '60s encapsulated by the cry “Don’t trust anyone over 30!”. Coupled with those two is a rather vicious individualism, which ways “you can’t tell me what to do”; and then there is relativism. Using the term “modernism” as a cover for everything we may find wrong fails to clearly identify what we are really battling; and if you cannot define your enemy, it is nigh impossible to do battle.

From the Wikipedia detail on Modernism: “Since Pope Paul VI, most Church authorities have largely dropped the term “modernism”, preferring instead in the interest of precision to call beliefs such as secularism, liberalism or relativism by their several names. The older term has however remained current in the usage of many Traditionalist Catholics and conservative critics within the Church.”

In other words, it (the term “modernism”) becomes a signature comment from one side, and in addition results in a significant lack of precision in our dialogues. I have seen the word used far too often in these forae by individuals who simply did not like something in the Church, had others who also did not like it, and used a blanket condemnation for something that was perfectly acceptable within Church boundaries of faith, morals, and practice.

You are, however, accurate that what is going on in the world is going to impact and affect Catholics - laity, clergy and professed religious included, whether we have a precise name for it or not.

 

[commenter]

… Using the term “modernism” as a cover for everything we may find wrong fails to clearly identify what we are really battling; and if you cannot define your enemy, it is nigh impossible to do battle…

I agree that no one term covers all aspects of the multiple processes of secularism that have emerged in the last century or so. I was making a point:

1. Some people reject V2 because the Church has had worse problems since the 1960s.
2. But secularism had entered the Church before the Council, to some extent.
3. Secularism also had entered Protestant denominations, and Western societies, prior to the 1960s.
4. Secularism got much stronger since the 1960s, mainly through the media, and increasingly impacted all institutions in Western societies, including Protestant churches that had nothing to do with Vatican 2.
5. In non-Western societies, secularism has had less impact; their Catholic Churches fully implemented Vatican 2. Their Catholic Churches have flourished. Evangelicals too.

CONCLUSION: Vatican 2 did not cause the current problems in the Catholic Church.

My purpose is to encourage people to stop supporting movements that identify themselves as “Catholic” but don’t support the Magisterium. These groups spend their time and money attacking the recent popes and bishops; they don’t do anything to actually counter secularism even though they use that threat to draw people to attend their conferences and subscribe to their media.

 

[Origen52]

I agree that no one term covers all aspects of the multiple processes of secularism that have emerged in the last century or so. I was making a point:

1. Some people reject V2 because the Church has had worse problems since the 1960s.
2. But secularism had entered the Church before the Council, to some extent.
3. Secularism also had entered Protestant denominations, and Western societies, prior to the 1960s.
4. Secularism got much stronger since the 1960s, mainly through the media, and increasingly impacted all institutions in Western societies, including Protestant churches that had nothing to do with Vatican 2.
5. In non-Western societies, secularism has had less impact; their Catholic Churches fully implemented Vatican 2. Their Catholic Churches have flourished. Evangelicals too.

CONCLUSION: Vatican 2 did not cause the current problems in the Catholic Church.

My purpose is to encourage people to stop supporting movements that identify themselves as “Catholic” but don’t support the Magisterium. These groups spend their time and money attacking the recent popes and bishops; they don’t do anything to actually counter secularism even though they use that threat to draw people to attend their conferences and subscribe to their media.

Bravo to you and otjm, your comments add necessary clarity to the whole issue of Vatican II. I’d like to quote father groschel, who unfortunately has been placed under a cloud, but he would often say that had it not been for VII, opening the windows, the explosion of the late 60s and 70s might have damaged the church much worse than it did.

Once again thanks to the two of you for your clear thinking:thumbsup:

 

[commenter]

Nobody ever went broke attacking the leaders of the Catholic Church. Fundamentalists learned this long ago, but now there’s a group who say “We’re Catholic, but…”
If one blogger says “30% of priests are gay”, the next blogger has to say “No, it’s 40%!”
If one speaker tells you to distrust your liberal pastor, the next speaker must say you also have to distrust your liberal bishop; then you buy that speaker’s books.

One conference promoted by posters was held recently. The advertising seemed to be about problems in American society impacting Catholics. But when I read summaries after the conference by people who supported it, Catholic Church leaders were attacked more than anyone else. In reading their online materials, “traditionalist” leaders say obey the Pope (but only when he is right). They will tell you when he is true, and when he isn’t.

I haven’t seen “traditionalist” ministries trying to lead non-Christians to become Christians.
All their outreaches seem to be aimed at Catholics who are too trustful of their pastor, bishop and pope. The radio fundamentalist who tells Catholics to “come out from the whore of Babylon” may be annoying, but at least he himself is honestly standing away from the Church. What troubles me is the people who work the doorways, one foot in the Church and one foot out. If the conference I referred to earlier had been honest, their advertising would have said “Our main focus will be to attack the leaders of the Catholic Church”. But then fewer would have come to the conference.

 

[otjm]

I agree that no one term covers all aspects of the multiple processes of secularism that have emerged in the last century or so. I was making a point:

1. Some people reject V2 because the Church has had worse problems since the 1960s.
2. But secularism had entered the Church before the Council, to some extent.
3. Secularism also had entered Protestant denominations, and Western societies, prior to the 1960s.
4. Secularism got much stronger since the 1960s, mainly through the media, and increasingly impacted all institutions in Western societies, including Protestant churches that had nothing to do with Vatican 2.
5. In non-Western societies, secularism has had less impact; their Catholic Churches fully implemented Vatican 2. Their Catholic Churches have flourished. Evangelicals too.

CONCLUSION: Vatican 2 did not cause the current problems in the Catholic Church.

My purpose is to encourage people to stop supporting movements that identify themselves as “Catholic” but don’t support the Magisterium. These groups spend their time and money attacking the recent popes and bishops; they don’t do anything to actually counter secularism even though they use that threat to draw people to attend their conferences and subscribe to their media.

Point well made. 'Would that they would listen.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I haven’t seen “traditionalist” ministries trying to lead non-Christians to become Christians.
.

You may not be looking hard enough. The SSPX has missions in Africa, Japan, the Philippines, Korea, India, Eastern Europe, and China (in plain clothes). Perhaps we need to see more non-traditionalist ministries leading non-Catholics of all stripes to join the true church, which is the Catholic Church. Luther, Calvin, Henry Tudor, and Joseph Smith were all Christians so it does not suffice to lead non-Christians to Christianity, unless it is the Catholic Church. A soul can only be saved through Her.

 

[otjm]

You may not be looking hard enough. The SSPX has missions in Africa, Japan, the Philippines, Korea, India, Eastern Europe, and China (in plain clothes). Perhaps we need to see more non-traditionalist ministries leading non-Catholics of all stripes to join the true church, which is the Catholic Church. Luther, Calvin, Henry Tudor, and Joseph Smith were all Christians so it does not suffice to lead non-Christians to Christianity, unless it is the Catholic Church. A soul can only be saved through Her.

Which brings us back to the original post - are the SSPX bishops and priests going to accept Rome’s requirements for full unification, or are they going to go into schism?

It would seem a given that Rome will not give permission to the bishops to ordain any more bishops unless and until there is a reconciliation, and it would seem that at some point, the three bishops will be faced with an either/or - either reconcile on Rome’s terms (which it appears they are rejecting), or ordain bishops without permission - and we have seen what happened the last time that occurred.

 

[ProVobis]

It would seem a given that Rome will not give permission to the bishops to ordain any more bishops unless and until there is a reconciliation, and it would seem that at some point, the three bishops will be faced with an either/or - either reconcile on Rome’s terms (which it appears they are rejecting), or ordain bishops without permission - and we have seen what happened the last time that occurred.

What happened to the 4th bishop? (Can we discuss on this forum?)

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

What happened to the 4th bishop? (Can we discuss on this forum?)

I don’t know if we can but if we can’t I hope they tell us.

I think the 4th Bishop will be the one to ordain another Bishop. I am surprised ( in a good way) that has not happened.

 

[otjm]

What happened to the 4th bishop? (Can we discuss on this forum?)

Since the SSPX appear to have cast him out, I couldn’t say. I would presume that he heads up a splinter group who have separated themselves off from the SSPX for whatever reasons; I have no idea where he is (physically) and no idea if any of the SSPX priests have aligned themselves with him.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Which brings us back to the original post - are the SSPX bishops and priests going to accept Rome’s requirements for full unification, or are they going to go into schism?

It would seem a given that Rome will not give permission to the bishops to ordain any more bishops unless and until there is a reconciliation, and it would seem that at some point, the three bishops will be faced with an either/or - either reconcile on Rome’s terms (which it appears they are rejecting), or ordain bishops without permission - and we have seen what happened the last time that occurred.

I think it all depends on whether Rome decides to push for a resolution or maintain the status quo. One of the components of schism is the belief that the Pope does not have the authority to govern the church, which is not the Society’s position. This is different from disobedience, as in the case of +Lefebvre, which does not, in itself, constitute formal schism. The Eastern Orthodox schismatics, on the contrary, deny the Pope’s primacy.

The individual points that Rome and the Society differ over that remain an obstacle to regularization are few but well known. It is anyone’s guess as to whether Rome will pressure the Society to accept these points under this Papacy. I don’t think that is on the Pope’s agenda, but of course I can’t know that for sure. I do not propose that it would be impossible for Rome to declare the Society in formal schism but I, personally think it is unlikely for several reasons.

Most certainly, if the Society decides to ordain another Bishop without a Papal mandate, then Rome will be forced to respond. I would suggest that even in that case, the response would more likely be a censure of the bishops and not a declaration of schism for the Society. Just my opinion.