SSPX : Pope May Offer the Society a Personal Ordinariate

[At_Trent]

The continued existence of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X has brought the Church the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, has allowed other priestly societies that celebrate the traditional rites of the Church to flourish, and the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum that has liberalized the Traditional Latin Mass. Although the position of the Society encompasses more than what is now considered the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, I hope and pray for canonical regularity.

I think anyone who sees H.H. BXVI as their Holy Father should pray so as well.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

My own opinion, but I would think that if a bishop were to honestly and sincerely think that the “Vatican was diabolically disoriented,” then it seems to follow that he should be excommunicated, since the Vatican is the legitimate authority of Christ’s Church.

The pope may be at the helm of the Barque of Peter but that doesn’t mean that every member of the Vatican, including the pope himself, has his head on straight. Modernism is mind-rot.

 

[At_Trent]

Pointing out the qualities of the SSPX that currently stand in the way of full communion is one thing. But the manner in which we see one member here do so is hateful and was described as such by our Holy Father himself in a letter to his Bishops.

At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

Seeing such in this thread on the topic of reconciliation and hope of unity is truly sad to see in this season of Lent. These arrows fired at the heart of the SSPX only serve to undermine our Holy Father’s efforts, and imo, are no different than the faults laid upon the Society as far as obedience are concerned. In short, it’s hypocrisy.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You are right At Trent. I certainly pray for such an Ordinariat. Why not? The Anglican got theirs. Its about time the SSPX was brought in.

But the Anglicans have said they accept everything the Catholic Church teaches and everything in the Catechism. Something the SSPX hasn’t done. Isn’t the ball in the SSPX’s court? All they have to do is do and way the same thing. They don’t have to say the OF Mass, the FSSP is already showing that it can be done.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I’ve never understood why we are expected to believe that the sspx are in the right and the Holy See is in the wrong.

It’s not a matter of the SSPX vs. the Holy See, it’s a matter of the Catholic Faith vs. the Holy See. Those members of the current Magisterium who have divorced themselves from the Catholic Faith need to return to it, it’s that simple.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

But the Anglicans have said they accept everything the Catholic Church teaches and everything in the Catechism. Something the SSPX hasn’t done. Isn’t the ball in the SSPX’s court? All they have to do is do and way the same thing. They don’t have to say the OF Mass, the FSSP is already showing that it can be done.

Because there is more at stake than just the Traditional Mass. There are many good FSSP priests, certainly, but they are also gagged to some degree to speak out about many of problems in the modern crisis. The SSPX doesn’t have that problem.

Why should we accept everything in the New Catechism? It has serious problems.

 

[AndyP2010]

Because there is more at stake than just the Traditional Mass. There are many good FSSP priests, certainly, but they are also gagged to some degree to speak out about many of problems in the modern crisis. The SSPX doesn’t have that problem.

Why should we accept everything in the New Catechism? It has serious problems.

Brother, in love I have to say to you, be careful here. The Lord promised that the gates hell of would not prevail against his Church headed, until his return, by St. Peter and his successors. There is no mention of the SSPX.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Brother

*Sister.

in love I have to say to you, be careful here. The Lord promised that the gates hell of would not prevail against his Church headed, until his return, by St. Peter and his successors. There is no mention of the SSPX.

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.

 

[Spirithound]

It’s not a matter of the SSPX vs. the Holy See, it’s a matter of the Catholic Faith vs. the Holy See. Those members of the current Magisterium who have divorced themselves from the Catholic Faith need to return to it, it’s that simple.

Can the Holy Father be divorced from the Catholic Faith?

 

[Califman831]

peter himself denied our lord three times

 

[Planty_Pall]

Yet, you continuously defend a group that acts in disobedience against the Holy See. You defend suspended priests who act in disobedience by offering illicit and illegal Masses, who hear confessions without the proper faculties, who have “no active ministry in the Church” but continue to function as if they do. What do you consider “indefensible?” Those things that you agree with, or the things that you do not?

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. I don’t see how I could do any “worse” believing what I do when you have such a radical opinion. For myself, I will always side with Christ’s Church, warts and all, over any group that claims to possess the fullness that Christ promised.

I have seldom posted here. Nothing about my participation at Catholic Answers is “continuous”. Check my 25 or 30 posts. I’m not here to talk about the SSPX.

Why do you ask what I consider indefensible? I already told you. I don’t think converts should be given the impression that every act of the Holy See is providential and requires silent acquiescence from the faithful. Yours is a quirky, non-Catholic understanding of the obedience of faith that neither pope, council, nor catechism has ever taught.

When has it been established that I give “full weight” to the SSPX? If you would have read my first post you would see that my opinion allows for the possibility that the original vision of Abp. Lefebvre is abandoned if the Society doesn’t accept a canonical solution. I only tacitly support the original consecrations of the bishops. But made in the dark shadow of the Assisi scandals, I understand how the decision was made. Doesn’t that seem to imply that I am open to the possibility that I might need to reevaluate my associations at some point in the possible near future? I don’t give full weight to the SSPX. I have sympathy.

Don’t you have any sympathy at all Tim? I would love to just my close my eyes, shut my mouth, and get behind everything every pope has ever done in history. If that’s your program, fine. I get it. I wish I could join you. But I wonder why you can’t see that those who can’t agree with you love the Church too? Even if you were right, I just don’t get the lack of compassion. Can’t you see that the situation is painful on our side too? It doesn’t give me any joy to have grave misgivings about the condition of the Church in our day.

Sincerely,

Planty Pall

 

[SouthpawLink]

Can the Holy Father be divorced from the Catholic Faith?

Theoretically, yes (cf. St. Francis de Sales, Suarez, Card. Cajetan, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Antoninus, the Catholic Encyclopedia, Marato, Card. Billot, Billuart, Coronata, Prummer, Wernz, Beste, Vermeersch, Regatillo, et al.).

• Bolded theologians indicate Doctors of the Church.

 

[laszlo]

Additionally, no teachings of Vatican II which contradict previous teachings are binding unless good cause is shown.

How do you know what contradicts to the previous teaching?

Do you suppose, that the college of bishops to whom Jesus Christ himself gave binding and loosing power (Matt 18:18) deliberately decreed issues which contradict the previous teaching?

Should not we suppose that the decisions of the council are binding as much as any other teaching of the Church except the dogmas related to the eternal unchangeable reality, like the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the declared mysteries about the status of the Holy Virgin?

So the question is: who is the judge about the contradiction with other teaching:

• learned traditionalist men
• any member of the clergy
• anyone who support the traditionalist position
• or only and exclusively the Church and the Magisterium herself?

 

[theistgal]

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

And they never let the truth stand in the way of a good story. The left-wing dissenters won’t drop the “Pope Benedict was a Nazi” half-truth, while the right-wingers won’t drop their “John Paul kissed the Koran” bit.

 

[SouthpawLink]

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

And they never let the truth stand in the way of a good story. The left-wing dissenters won’t drop the “Pope Benedict was a Nazi” half-truth, while the right-wingers won’t drop their “John Paul kissed the Koran” bit.

Cannot heresy also be manifested in one’s deeds? Catholic theologians have said, “Yes.” Note well, I’m not accusing anyone of heresy, but I am saying that one’s actions (and not merely his words or interior thoughts) can be heretical.

What’s more, another (well-founded) right-wing complaint is that Pope John Paul II asked St. John the Baptist to protect a false religion (Islam). Make of that whatever you will.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/travels/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000321_wadi-al-kharrar_en.html

 

[vsedriver]

The pope may be at the helm of the Barque of Peter but that doesn’t mean that every member of the Vatican, including the pope himself, has his head on straight. Modernism is mind-rot.

If the Pope is at the helm of the Barque of Peter we must follow him or jump ship. You can’t have two or more trying to control the rudder of a ship. You will get no where fast.

I respect that traditionalists want to put the ‘Holy’ back in Holy Mass. But it is obedience to the Church that proves the truth. Even if that obedience appears to be oppressive and wrong. In the end if their view is correct it will come to pass. Nothing succeeds in an air of disobedience.

 

[vsedriver]

It’s not a matter of the SSPX vs. the Holy See, it’s a matter of the Catholic Faith vs. the Holy See. Those members of the current Magisterium who have divorced themselves from the Catholic Faith need to return to it, it’s that simple.

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.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Because there is more at stake than just the Traditional Mass. There are many good FSSP priests, certainly, but they are also gagged to some degree to speak out about many of problems in the modern crisis. The SSPX doesn’t have that problem.

Why should we accept everything in the New Catechism? It has serious problems.

With comments like this, why do people still wonder why the SSPX has not been reunited fully with the Church?

To not accept the teaching of the Church which is reflected in the Catechism is to NOT be united with the Church. If anyone, the SSPX, any one individual, does not accept the Catechism, then they are not Catholic.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

You are right At Trent. I certainly pray for such an Ordinariat. Why not? The Anglican got theirs. Its about time the SSPX was brought in.

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

Alex

 

[TMC]

It may well be that the Pope is willing to offer a personal ordinariate if that will bring the SSPX back into the fold, but first the SSPX has to agree to come back. The recent statements from the SSPX leadership demonstrate that they are not willing to accept the teaching of the Church or the authority of the Magisterium, so I don’t see the SSPX as a group re-integrating anytime soon.