SSPX : Pope May Offer the Society a Personal Ordinariate

[Aramis]

Can the Holy Father be divorced from the Catholic Faith?

Not long term.

peter himself denied our lord three times

But was reconciled 3 days later. And within a few weeks, was put in charge of the church-to-be.

The problem with the SSPX, as with all dissenters, is their insistence that they should sit in judgment over the Pope.

The problem runs deeper; they claim that they are the only ones holding on to the full expression of the true faith, and justify their schismatic behaviors by their claim that the OF is questionable and the current praxis is bad. While I agree about current roman praxis, I disagree about the OF missal…

It is not possible that the Magisterium has divorced itself from the Catholic Faith. Either the Magisterium is protected by the Holy Spirit or it isn’t. If what you say is true then the Orthodox and Protestants have legitimate grounds for schism.

And if the magisterium isn’t, then neither is the SSPX.

@ the OP:
The speculation is just that… speculation. It is well founded speculation.

I sincerely doubt the SSPX will be brought back as a corporate entity; I do suspect that an ordinariate system for the Tridentine Use of the Roman Rite is in the works on a wide scale. I also suspect that it will be a unification of the ICRSS, FSSP, and those who leave the SSPX to return to full visible communion.

I suspect the SSPX itself will become the next equivalent of the “Old Catholic” schism.

 

[TMC]

I sincerely doubt the SSPX will be brought back as a corporate entity; I do suspect that an ordinariate system for the Tridentine Use of the Roman Rite is in the works on a wide scale. I also suspect that it will be a unification of the ICRSS, FSSP, and those who leave the SSPX to return to full visible communion.

This may be a good way to deal with the situation and to bring back as many SSPX members are are willing to come back.

I suspect the SSPX itself will become the next equivalent of the “Old Catholic” schism.

I have long said this was the direction the SSPX is heading. In fact, but for the efforts of Pope Benedict, they would probably already be there. All the Church can do is hold the door open for them, unfortunately the SSPX leadership is not showing any signs of wanting to walk through it.

 

[ProVobis]

However, it did not declare any new dogmas. It doesn’t appear to have any and Pope Paul VI and Pope Benedict XVI (as Card. Ratzinger) have stated so explicitly.
… In short, Rome says the SSPX must accept the new teachings on ecumenism.

What may be confusing to many (including myself) is that the issue was to resolve areas of doctrinal differences. Yet as ecumenism seems to be the big obstacle, Vatican II didn’t define it as doctrine as you have correctly stated. So it appears we’re presented with a “X didn’t define any dogma or doctrine but you must accept the doctrines of X” argument. Now what can we as laypeople do about the situation? Has there been some misinterpretation somewhere along the line? What are we supposed to believe?

Do realize this can have ramifications outside of the SSPX specific situation.

 

[laszlo]

From my speaking to SSPXers here, they refuse to come into such an Ordinariate because of their ongoing difficulties with Vatican II . . .

Alex

So do the Anglicans as a body. The offer for the ordinariate is for individual communities,

 

[At_Trent]

All I know is, for all the gloomy predictions on the fate of the SSPX, there certainly is an opposite message coming from Rome.

The pope wants them back, while the internet inquisitors passionately attempt to maintain an “I told you so” agenda to discredit the Society.

Deo gratias H.H. hasn’t given up on them.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

So do the Anglicans as a body. The offer for the ordinariate is for individual communities,

Except there is real homogeneity among SSPXers that is rather absent among Anglicans with their High, Middle and Low categories and everything in between.

There is perhaps greater likelihood of union with Rome among Anglican communities (including the historic Religious Orders that have joined with Rome) than SSPX communities, although instances involving the latter have occurred. Individuals of the SSPX and also those who regularly attend SSPX Masses but who don’t formally belong to the SSPX would be, in my view, the likely pool of candidates on the fast-track “home to Rome.”

Also, the distinction should be drawn between Anglicans moving toward the fullness of the Catholic faith as taught by Rome and SSPXers who question that same faith due to Vatican II.

Alex

 

[ProVobis]

Individuals of the SSPX and also those who regularly attend SSPX Masses but who don’t formally belong to the SSPX would be, in my view, the likely pool of candidates on the fast-track “home to Rome.”

This is the way I see it too. I wouldn’t be surprised, though, if dropping the name SSPX were required for such “full” communion. If nothing else, the ‘X’ seems to have bad (sinful) connotations.

 

[Iotaunum]

As someone who attends Mass said by the SSPX (and travels a good distance to do so) I would like to give my opinion on the issue.

Firstly nowadays we hear a lot of talk about “full communion” and bringing the SSPX into this “full communion” with the Church. What we must realise is that these terms are relatively new and no Catholic is obliged by faith to accept them and their definitions by Church men.

Anyone who is baptized validly and is not excommunicated and is able to receive the Sacraments, providing they are not a heretic, is a Catholic. All Catholics are in communion with the Catholic Church. A lot of people, myself included do not recognise such a novelty as “partial communion” or a “partial Catholic". One is either a Catholic or one is not. If you are Catholic, you are in communion with the Church -even if you are in great sin. No one who is truly Catholic is in “partial communion” with the Church. So you are either Catholic or a non- Catholic and you cannot be partially Catholic, more Catholic etc.

The SSPX are truly Catholics and as such are in communion with the Church. No bishop, priest, religious or laity in the SSPX have or can be accused of heresy. The SSPX does not doubt nor deny one iota of the Catholic faith. Pope Benedict Pope has said that the SSPX are true Catholics but that the society is canonically irregular. No member of the SSPX is a “partial Catholic” nor a non-Catholic. I need not mention any names but a list of some prelates who are considered to be in “full communion” alongside some of the Priests of the SSPX would show how ridiculous this new concept appears to a lot of Catholics.

One thing to remember is that the SSPX does not accuse the Pope of formal heresy. However, while some sedevacantists go to extremes and accuse the Pope of formal heresy a whole lot more fall into the error of thinking that a Pope cannot be at least a material heretic and that he cannot ever teach or write or do anything which is heretical or which leads to heresy or which (to use a theological term) “smells” of heresy. This is not the case as the doctors of the Church and Church history has proven. But the important point is that the SSPX do not say the Pope is a heretic and judge/depose him. However, (and I don’t want to open a can of worms here) when the Popes says things which are contrary to the faith and what his predecessors have declared we simply do not follow him, as Pope Pius IX advised one Bishop following the first Vatican council who asked him what would happen if a future Pope were to teach heresy. St Thomas Aquinas agrees.

As Catholics we are not obliged and cannot be obliged to believe that “Muslims, together with us, worship the one merciful God who will judge mankind on the last day” which Lumen Gentium teaches. As a Catholic we are not bound to this teaching which 1/ Is not infallible and 2/ Is clearly novel. We do not say that the Pope is not the Pope therefore, nor do we stand accused of heresy, but we have every right to resist such novel teachings. This same teaching is also taught in the Catechism, which as Cardinal Ratzinger explained in his introduction, cannot give any teaching any theological weight other than that which it had held previously. So there is a misconception that ANY resistance to new teachings and statements/actions of the Pope is somehow schismatic or rebellious. This is not the case.

Also (and I have given the canonical arguments on another thread) the SSPX, I and many others believe that the excommunication which the bishops and Archbishop were supposed to have incurred were never actually incurred due to canon law itself making an exception which nullifies the penalty, and which was the case in the Econe consecrations.

The question of a Personal Ordinariate therefore cannot be considered until these problems have been discussed. I cannot see the Pope wanting the SSPX preaching against what they see as errors and a loss of faith since Vatican II, nor can I see the SSPX wanting to compromise on any of these points. The SSPX did not change any of the faith and are in communion with the Church, therefore the question of canonical regularity will always be superfluous as long as doctrinal issues are at stake. This is my opinion.

 

[Warrenton]

You admit that the Holy See is NOT always guided by God, yet give the full weight of your support to a group that is not even in full communion with the Church.

Certainly the case of the SSPX is different from others. In the SSPX, you have a group of Catholics who rely on the strength of a tradition that goes back to Trent. By its own terms, Trent revived the earlier traditions of the Roman rite.

Unlike Protestants, the SSPX does not invoke either a mythical Christian past or a non-existent future, but relies on the Church’s own history. In this, they seem closer to the position taken by Orthodox Christians, or perhaps Old Believers within the Russian Orth. Ch.

Nobody disputes that serious problems arose in the immediate aftermath of V2, and that those problems, in greater or lesser degree, remain with us. There is no universally agreed upon answer to the problem’s cause, and even the popes themselves have been challenged in how to respond. Nobody can seriously say that if SSPX just went away these problems would evaporate.

Most Catholics are willing to accept the idea that the Church can make mistakes. Emperors have pressured popes and bishops into acceding to positions that were incorrect, popes and bishops have acted out of base motives, or have made mistakes out of good but misguided intentions. The full range of human folly can be seen in the Church’s history.

SSPX poses the the question whether the position put forward at Trent is more likely to be correct than the position put forward at V2. Is it more likely that the Church was on the wrong track for 400 years or for 40?

Most other groups that leave the Church claim it was never right.

The unique position occupied by SSPX explains why the Church treats it differently. An Ordinariate does seem like a creative way to resolve the impasse.

 

[Warrenton]

The question of a Personal Ordinariate therefore cannot be considered until these problems have been discussed. I cannot see the Pope wanting the SSPX preaching against what they see as errors and a loss of faith since Vatican II, nor can I see the SSPX wanting to compromise on any of these points. The SSPX did not change any of the faith and are in communion with the Church, therefore the question of canonical regularity will always be superfluous as long as doctrinal issues are at stake. This is my opinion.

I agreed with your post except this last bit, with which I have a few reservations.

I believe that both the SSPX and some in Rome, certainly the Pope, are above all practical men. They know that the gospel must be preached to men as they are, by men as they are. They appreciate the urgency of preaching, because as many perish without hearing the gospel, or accepting it, that same number are lost souls to Christ for which we will be held to account.

SSPX needs to the freedom to minister to the Church at large. The Church needs the SSPX as well, to fulfill the command of unity given by our Lord.

The practicalities require that Rome and the SSPX resolve the legal issues first, in a way that preserves their respective positions for further discussion at a later date. Some argue that this would create a church-within-a-church, but this is false. Once the SSPX is fully reintegrated into the Roman Catholic Church, it will immediately begin to bear fruit, according to the parable. It cannot be otherwise. The good tree bears good fruit, always.

Anyone who has read the Pope’s recent speeches knows how concerned he is about the state of the Church and of the West. Some, perhaps, prefer to dwell on what he wrote in the early to mid 1960s. If I were held to every notion I had when I was younger, and forced to adhere to every mistake I made in perpetuity, I would lose all hope. People change; even people who make mistakes. St. Peter himself made what perhaps was the largest mistake any pope ever made, but he changed, and the the obelisk where he was crucified is in the Vatican still.

I believe the Pope and many bishops are fully prepared for the SSPX to preach according to its conscience. Not all bishops will agree with it, but not all bishops agree on anything else. There are bishops who think altar girls are good, and ones who don’t. Some bishops probably want female priests, others don’t. Some bishops probably doubt the validity of transubstantiation.

It is impossible to believe that within the spectrum of the Church, that the SSPX does not have a place, and that it will not be found, put into place, and soon.

 

[Aramis]

The unique position occupied by SSPX explains why the Church treats it differently. An Ordinariate does seem like a creative way to resolve the impasse.

An ordinariate can not resolve the issues at the heart of the SSPX as a group.

It can, and will, provide a safe haven for those attached to the OF missal and its surrounding praxis.

It will not appease in any way those who are the core of the SSPX issue:

• Those who deny papal and patriarchal authority
• those who deny conciliar authority over the non-dogmatic issues of the church
• those who demand a small group of illicit bishops have the right to overrule the synod of the unified Catholic Churches
• those who reject the validity of missals other than the one commissioned by the Council of Trent

All of which I have seen done by SSPX members (not just laity who feel attached to the SSPX).

The SSPX as a whole is in a state where they deny papal authority, they also as a group demand a return of the Roman Church to Pre-Vatican II praxis… denying the council’s authority over the missal.

The inclusion of an Old Testament reading at sunday mass is not a bad thing.
The use of the vernacular is not a bad thing.

But the SSPX has publicly demanded an end to both.

It is this “we are right, the council was wrong” that is the very heart of their genesis.

And an Ordinariate will not assuage that in the least. The lessons of the ECCs should be noted… those in the SSPX who will join such an ordinariate will not be the ones to hold to those views… the extremists in the SSPX will be all that will be left. And they will be even more perniciously opposed to returning to visible union with Rome.

And the need for that full visible union has been around for centuries, hence the existence of the 22 Eastern Churches in Union with Rome

 

[At_Trent]

It’s fine to discuss reasons we think it may not work, but the fact of the matter is, it’s an internal matter in the Roman Catholic Church, and Roman Catholic Curia members will determine what may be a feasible solution. Not anyone here on this forum. Especially by those who have never expressed a kind word towards the SSPX, and have nothing at stake in the matter.

As a Roman Catholic, I can only share my pope’s desire that the SSPX will accept his invitation to return.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

I have deleted 11 posts that are blatantly disrespectful of the Holy Father or the SSPX.

I will remind everyone that disagreement is permmissible; but rudeness is not. There have been infractions, suspensions and bans to chronic offenders.

If you disagree, feel free. If you must say something rude or unnecessary in order to express your disagreemenbt, please don’t do so. It’s unfair to those who want to discuss this subject. Rude comments make it necessary for the moderator to close the thread, because they simply derail the discussion.

The statement of the table is very clear. You can agree with it or disagree. You can add details that you may know and the rest of us do not know. That’s always helpful. You may not make commends about the orthodoxy of the clergy, hierarchy, the papacy or other posters . . . that includes the orthodoxy of the SSPX. We’re not just protecting the other side here. We protecting everyone’s right to be spoken aboiut with due respect.

 

[JReducation]

As someone who attends Mass said by the SSPX (and travels a good distance to do so) I would like to give my opinion on the issue.

Firstly nowadays we hear a lot of talk about “full communion” and bringing the SSPX into this “full communion” with the Church. What we must realize is that these terms are relatively new and no Catholic is obliged by faith to accept them and their definitions by Church men.

Maybe you misunderstand what the expressions “full communion” means. The expression was coined by Cardinal Ratzinger when he spoke and wrote about the relationship between individuals and communities to the Universal Church.

He never used “partial communion.” I don’t know if anyone else has. But the term “full communion” was used to describe a situation in which an individual or a community is in communion with the Universal Church on all points of moral law, doctrine, and discipline.

There are points in all three areas where Catholics and non-Catholics are in communion with the Universal Church. However, there are also points in any of those areas where Catholics and non-Catholics are not in communion with the Universal Church. Those individuals are not in full-communion. That’s what it means. It applies equally to Catholics and non-Catholics. For example, Orthodox Christians and Catholics are in full communion on all matters relating to the sacraments, but are not in full communion on other matters. That’s what he described as Communion in Sacris, where he is being very specific about the area where there is communion

One who dissents on morals, doctrine or discipline is out of communion in that area where he or she dissents. That does not make him a non-Catholic, if he or she is a Catholic to begin with. However, he or she is a Catholic who is not in full-communion with the universal Church.

Even matters of discipline, which are not doctrine or moral law are binding, because the Church has the authority to demand assent to her rules

As Catholics we are not obliged and cannot be obliged to believe that “Muslims, together with us, worship the one merciful God who will judge mankind on the last day” which Lumen Gentium teaches.

Under discipline, we are bound not to contradict the official position of the Church on this matter. It is not being stated as a matter of faith or morals. It is being stated as teaching point. The Church believes this and teaches it.

as Cardinal Ratzinger explained in his introduction, cannot give any teaching any theological weight other than that which it had held previously. So there is a misconception that ANY resistance to new teachings and statements/actions of the Pope is somehow schismatic or rebellious. This is not the case.

The two things are very different. What the Cardinal said in his introduction was that there was no new theology in the CCC. He never said that the manner in which it is written is not new. Nor did he ever say that it could be dismissed, because the wording is new. What he is saying is that we should look past the wording and find the root of what it says in the faith tradition of the Church, because everything that is in the CCC is rooted in that tradition.

 

[JReducation]

Also (and I have given the canonical arguments on another thread) the SSPX, I and many others believe that the excommunication which the bishops and Archbishop were supposed to have incurred were never actually incurred due to canon law itself making an exception which nullifies the penalty, and which was the case in the Econe consecrations.

That’s a moot point right now. Once a pope rescinds an excommunication, his action states that he believes that it existed in the first place. Otherwise, he would have declared it invalid as was done with Joan of Arc. Her excommunication was never rescinded. It was declared to be invalid; therefore, there was no need to rescind it.

People can go on believing that there never was an excommunication. However, the man who has the authority to say if there is or is not, does not agree with these folks. When it comes to excommunications, one cannot tie the pope down to Canon Law. Pope issue Canon Law. Therefore, they are above the law. They can change it without notice and they can choose to ignore it, because they believe that it is the right thing to do. Church law does not bind popes. Popes do not bind popes. The only thing that binds a pope is moral law and dogma. Even there, he has the freedom to restate it in his own words and the rest of the Church has the duty to try to understand what he’s saying. It’s not his role to accommodate to the law, but to make the law work. If it does not work, he can bypass it. This has been done many times. We (all of us) need to stop quoting the law in order to show how the pope was wrong. It won’t work. Pope are above the law. This is the power to bind and unbind that comes with the papacy. Popes do not have to personally excommunicate. They can allow another to do it and simply assent by letting it happen. Other times, people excommunicate themselves.

We also need to understand the true nature of excommunication. It’s purpose is medicinal. It’s supposed to bring the person back to the Church. When an excommunication does not work, then the pope can choose to lift it. Pope Benedict explained this very clearly in Light of the World. He said that he had rescinded the excommunication because the surviving SSPX bishops had asked and by asking they submitted to the authority of the primacy.

He also explains that the excommunications had nothing to do with the SSPX or Traditionalism. He said that they had to do with the break with the primacy and that he supported the excommunication when that break took place through the illicit ordination of bishops. In other words, the Holy See’s concern was that Bishop Lefebvre acted without permission and the Holy See was not going to give him the benefit of the protection of Canon Law. It (the Holy See) had warned him that it would happen. He entered a situation knowing that the Holy See was not going to allow any canon lawyer to use the law in his defense. We can think of this as fair or unfair. But we have to accept the facts. The Holy See has that kind of power. It can decide that a law does not apply to you and you cannot shelter yourself under it. That’s part of a government that “totalitarian”. No one has denied that the government of the Church is a benign dictatorship. At this point, since the excommunications have been rescinded, this is is moot question. With whom are we going to argue the point? The Holy See is not interested in discussing it or hearing what we have to say about it.

The question of a Personal Ordinariate therefore cannot be considered until these problems have been discussed. I cannot see the Pope wanting the SSPX preaching against what they see as errors and a loss of faith since Vatican II, nor can I see the SSPX wanting to compromise on any of these points. The SSPX did not change any of the faith and are in communion with the Church, therefore the question of canonical regularity will always be superfluous as long as doctrinal issues are at stake. This is my opinion.

An ordinariate can be considered anytime that either the Holy Father or one of his delegates decides to consider it. Let’s not say that it “cannot be” considered. You can suggest that it not be done. That would be OK to make that suggestion. “Cannot” is a strong term by those of us who are at the bottom of the pecking order.

We have to be very careful with how we state things, because a non-Catholic can read this stuff and become very confused. It can give the impression that in the Catholic Church the faithful have all kinds of power that we don’t really have and that we don’t really want. If we had all of this power and voice we would probably end up in the same mess as many Protestant communities. We have done a fairly nice job at creating our own messes over the past 2,000 years. We don’t need more avenues to make them bigger and better.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SouthpawLink]

Aramis,
The SSPX does not deny papal authority nor does it deny the validity of the NOM. To my knowledge, they also accept the validity of Vatican II. On the other hand, they’re quick to point out that it was a pastoral council which defined no new doctrines. Therefore, it likely belongs to the authentic ordinary Magisterium and ought to be interpreted in light of previous teaching. The Council Fathers composed their documents (after throwing out the original schemas) and left it to future theologians to show the Council’s continuity with the past. Pope John Paul II said this was still being worked on in 1988.

The term “partial communion” is used at least six times in Vatican documents: gsearch.vatican.va/search?q=partial+communion&x=0&y=0

Communion properly denotes unity of faith, unity of sacraments and unity of government, three elements which comprise the traditional definition of the Church (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum; Ven. Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi).

One final point I’d like to make is that we ought not do away with the Church’s own terminology when she authoritatively made use of such terminology in the past. I’m thinking specifically of Scholastic terminology:

“Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them. … The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning” (Ven. Pius XII, Humani Generis, nn.16-17).

There’s certainly evidence that scholastic terminology was specifically avoided while drafting Lumen Gentium so that a more positive attitude could be taken towards non-Catholics. The Decree on Ecumenism may have very well gone over the line in stating which gifts were active in those communities separated from the Holy See (at least, that’s my opinion). That decree absolutely would not have been adopted had Gregory XVI been the reigning Pontiff (again, my opinion). Forty years later, Cardinal Kasper gets to snicker at the Church’s narrow, post-Tridentine understanding of herself…

 

[AndyP2010]

*Sister.

Um… eh? Who said hell has prevailed against the Church? And why are you pitting the SSPX against the Church? The SSPX is part of the Church.

First, of all let me apologize for assuming that you were a man. Second I may be confused but many of your post seem to take SSPX as being truer to the faith than the Pope. Do I have this wrong?

 

[AndyP2010]

That decree absolutely would not have been adopted had Gregory XVI been the reigning Pontiff (again, my opinion).

What an interesting thought. Yet that is not who the Holy Spirit choose to rule the Church at the time. Do you doubt that the Holy Spirit could have raised up to the Chair of Peter, another such as he if that is what the Church needed? Look at the Pontificate of John Paul I. What was it 33 days? Was he just a stand in until John Paul the Great was ready? Will we find out at the last judgement the there was some small act of his that needed to be done that only he alone could do? It’s a mystery, one of many.

 

[TMC]

That decree absolutely would not have been adopted had Gregory XVI been the reigning Pontiff (again, my opinion).

Out of the 265 Popes in history, why pluck Gregory XVI? Gregory XVI was a bit of a Luddite and opposed everything from modern lighting to railroads, and he may have opposed ecumensim, as well. I am sure that at least some of the other 264 popes would have been opposed to ecumenism as it is taught today, and that many would be for it. Anyone can play the game of finding a soundbite from a pope or saint that seems to support their position, but cherrypicking history in that manner rarely advances the discussion.

 

[ProVobis]

Out of the 265 Popes in history, why pluck Gregory XVI? Gregory XVI was a bit of a Luddite and opposed everything from modern lighting to railroads, and he may have opposed ecumensim, as well. **I am sure that at least some of the other 264 popes would have been opposed to ecumenism as it is taught today, and that many would be for it. ** Anyone can play the game of finding a soundbite from a pope or saint that seems to support their position, but cherrypicking history in that manner rarely advances the discussion.

Good point. Perhaps the next Pope may be strongly against an Assisi-type event; yet the SSPX is judged only by the current Pope. So there has to be more than infallible doctrine that is involved in the ongoing talks.