SSPX / RCC talks

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flavius_Aetius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dempsey1919 said:
If the SSPX enters into full communion with Rome, it will definitely be a smaller Society. In fact, it is more likely that SSPX priests will leave the Society and join other traditionalist fraternities such as the FSSP.
Click to expand...
Probably. And that will give the Church more Latin Mass priests and teachers. It seems the only question is which of the four bishops, if any, will procure canonical status as bishops.
 
It seems the only question is which of the four bishops, if any, will procure canonical status as bishops.
Click to expand...
In a perfect world, three of the Bishops with the exception of Williamson would receive canonical status. Williamson wouldn’t receive canonical status because I doubt he would ever submit to Rome.

It would be fantastic if the three Bishops received canonical status. It seems unlikely that the FSSP or the ICRSS will receive any Bishops so it would be nice to have traditional Latin Catholic Bishops within the mainstream.
 
Dempsey1919 said:
In a perfect world, three of the Bishops with the exception of Williamson would receive canonical status. Williamson wouldn’t receive canonical status because I doubt he would ever submit to Rome.
Click to expand...
Reading what the Holy Father has publicly said about His Excellency, Bishop Williamson, I get the impression that the Holy Father does not have a place for him in the Church. The Holy Father called him an anti-Semite in an interview. In another interview he refers to him as a very difficult man. And in a third interview, he says that Bishop Williamson was never inside the Catholic Church. In the interview where he calls him an anti-Semite, the Holy Father says that had he known that Bishop Williamson did not believe in the Shoah the way that the Church believes it, he would have separated him from the other bishops and not have lifted his excommunication. Those are pretty tough words. There is an excellent summary of the Holy Father’s feeling toward Bishop Williamson in Light of the World. Apparently the author does not exaggerate. The Curia confirmed that these were the Holy Father’s words.

I feel sorry for Bishop Williamson. I hope that he will back down or he’s going to be separated from the rest when this whole thing reaches a conclusion or he may find himself at a desk job in the Vatican.
It would be fantastic if the three Bishops received canonical status. It seems unlikely that the FSSP or the ICRSS will receive any Bishops so it would be nice to have traditional Latin Catholic Bishops within the mainstream.
Click to expand...
Neither the FSSP nor the ICRSS are allowed to have bishops. This was decided to avoid having another SSPX situation. Only the major religious orders of men are allowed to have bishops, because those bishops are under the jurisdiction of the Holy Father in pastoral matters and under their major superiors and founders in matters regarding their spiritual and communal lives.

If the three bishops are placed in the mainstream, they will have to agree to celebrate the sacraments in both forms, EF and OF. You cannot have an Ordinary of a diocese who will not celebrate the sacraments in the OF, because it is the Ordinary way that we celebrate mass and Pope Benedict is determined that it will remain that way for a very long time.

In addition, they will have to agree to work cooperatively with the bishops within their national conferences of bishops, to promote the CCC as it is written as the model for all future catechism to be written and they will have to agree to work with religious superiors and their respective communities without interference or criticism of the particular religious communities. One or the other of the bishops of the SSPX has made some comments about the Jesuits and the Franciscans. Bishop are not allowed to comment on religious orders. Only diocesan communities are under the jurisdiction of the bishop and only the bishop of the home diocese of the community, not other bishops.

The SSPX bishops who enter the mainstream will have to adjust their way of doing business. They will not be asked to give up the EF. But they will be asked to take on the OF, the CCC, the Council Documents, and to accept the Ordinary authority of the Major Superiors of religious men. For example, if a Major Superior says that no one in his religious community will celebrate the EF, that’s the end of the discussion. It’s not going to happen until the Superior changes his mind. If the bishop does not like it, he cannot force it. That would be suppression. Bishops don’t have authority to suppress religious. Most are outside of his jurisdiction by virtue of being consecrated men.

I don’t even want to imagine someone like Bishop Williamson getting into a conflict with one of the Pontifical Religious Orders or a Pontifical Religious Congregation of men or women. He would have the Superiors General all over him. Such a confrontation would be tragic.

It’s not just a matter of getting Traditional bishops into a diocese. It’s a matter of getting bishops into a diocese who can work with the people who help him run his diocese. I really don’t know if the SSPX bishops are ready or even agreeable to enter into such a situation where they have much less control than they have within the SSPX.

People often think that bishops have a lot of power. They have a lot of authority, but not power. They only have power over secular clergy and the laity who live within the boundaries of their dioceses. A bishop can ban a layman and a diocesan priest, deacon or bishop, but not a religious (male or female).

As I see it, the best thing would be a Personal Prelature, like the Opus Dei. One of the bishops would become the Holy Father’s Vicar. This would keep them together. The Vicar would answer directly to the Holy Father. All they would need from the other bishops would be permission to enter their dioceses. Once they enter, they cannot be asked to leave. Only the Holy Father can ask them to leave.

If they become part of the mainstream, they have to work cooperatively with many people and many Church institutions that are not under their control and who disagree with them. Can you imagine an SSPX bishop trying to deal with last year’s problem at Notre Dame? That bishop would have been removed from office. The Bishop in that situation was very diplomatic. He expressed his concern and pointed to the problem as he saw it. But he never said a single public word to the Congregation of the Holy Cross or about them either. Nor did he enter into a public confrontation with Fr. Jenkins. I’m not so sure that some of the SSPX bishops would be as careful not to cross certain legal lines. I believe that Bishop Fellay can do it. He seems like a practical chap.

Just my two cents, with inflation, I probably owe you money. 😃

Have a Blessed Easter

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Neither the FSSP nor the ICRSS are allowed to have bishops.
Click to expand...
My understand is, based on some declaration on the FSSP site, that they do not want to have bishop and personal prelature.

Partly may be because of the responsibility, and partly because the SSPX priests are still their brothers, and they expect to join them.

Benedict XVI dream was certainly that the (the SSPX) get the personal prelature what was promised to them in 1989, and what Archbishop Lefevbre accepted signing the agreement. Naturally this cannot be achieved on that that way that the SSPX dictates to the Church, the hierarchy and through them to our Lord what to do.

One other possible outcome is a Motu Proprio which accepts individual SSPX communities like the Anglican communities are accepted, leaving the SSPX leadership for their own.
 
pnewton said:
That is the story that some Traditionalists spin, despite the fact two of the documents are labeled dogmatic. This shows the danger of listening to the SSPX instead of the Church.
Click to expand...
Which two are dogmatic? Correct me if I am wrong, but the Church teaches that all dogmas are infallible. If you are referring to Vatican II, then I am curious to know how they were labelled dogmatic when no dogmas were propagated. Or were they doctrine, not dogma?

Dogma: INFALLIBLE teaching of Faith or Morals, derived from the Deposit of Faith. Propagated by ex cathedra pronouncment of reigning Pontiff or by a ecumenical council of the Church’s bishops in turn ratified by reigning Pontiff. Cannot contradict Deposit of Faith or prior Dogma.

Doctrine: NOT infallible teaching of the Church of Faith and Morals. Binding on all Catholics while propagated. Can be altered, modified, abandoned, even condemned. Doctrine RARELY becomes Dogma.

SSPX argues that what VII propagated is contrary to Catholic teachings and that most people either deny that ‘fact’ or are not aware of it. What I don’t know is whether or not those teachings they refer to are dogma or doctrine.
 
JReducation said:
The Holy Father says that had he known that Bishop Williamson did not believe in the Shoah the way that the Church believes it, he would have separated him from the other bishops and not have lifted his excommunication.
Click to expand...
Without siding with H.E., this tends to diminish the Pope’s credibility on this issue as it gives the impression that one can be excommunicated from the Catholic Faith by not accepting a political (secular) statistic divorced of any connection to an element of our faith. The puzzling part is that I was unaware that there was a known and accepted number of Jews killed in the Holocaust that the Catholic Church approves or ascribes to that should be common enough knowledge and important enough NOT to be contradicted. Secondly, it is disappointing that giving an opinion on this secular fact would be a reason for the Holy Father to withhold the charity he demonstrated to the other bishops by lifting the excommunications. Thirdly, the secular world of course now sees excommunication as a political tool as the ADL has called for Bishop Williamson’s re-excommunication based on the opinion he gave in a television interview that has no bearing on the faith. And finally, to accuse the Bishop of hating Jews based on his understanding of the magnitude of the holocaust is a bit ‘over-the-top’ in my opinion.

I am not defending H.E.'s eccentricities but I do take issue with making it an issue of our Roman Catholic faith with a perceived canonical consequence, or reason enough to otherwise withhold the remedy for a canonical consequence.
 
giuseppeTO said:
Without siding with H.E., this tends to diminish the Pope’s credibility on this issue as it gives the impression that one can be excommunicated from the Catholic Faith by not accepting a political (secular) statistic divorced of any connection to an element of our faith. The puzzling part is that I was unaware that there was a known and accepted number of Jews killed in the Holocaust that the Catholic Church approves or ascribes to that should be common enough knowledge and important enough NOT to be contradicted. Secondly, it is disappointing that giving an opinion on this secular fact would be a reason for the Holy Father to withhold the charity he demonstrated to the other bishops by lifting the excommunications. Thirdly, the secular world of course now sees excommunication as a political tool as the ADL has called for Bishop Williamson’s re-excommunication based on the opinion he gave in a television interview that has no bearing on the faith. And finally, to accuse the Bishop of hating Jews based on his understanding of the magnitude of the holocaust is a bit ‘over-the-top’ in my opinion.

I am not defending H.E.'s eccentricities but I do take issue with making it an issue of our Roman Catholic faith with a perceived canonical consequence, or reason enough to otherwise withhold the remedy for a canonical consequence.
Click to expand...
I think that the Pope’s problems with Bishop Williamson go much deeper than a conflict over the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust and it is not merely a dispute over a secular fact. I do not want to go into detail out of concern that it would be seen as uncharitable towards Bishop Williamson, but remember that the Pope’s comment was that the Bishop is an anti-Semite. I believe that the overall record of Bishop Williamson’s statements about Jews show that his views on Jews and Judaism are not in communion with the teaching of the Church, and that his statements and the implications of his statements are sufficient justification for the Pope comments.
 
laszlo said:
My understand is, based on some declaration on the FSSP site, that they do not want to have bishop and personal prelature.

Partly may be because of the responsibility, and partly because the SSPX priests are still their brothers, and they expect to join them.
Click to expand...
I had not heard the FSSP side on this question. That’s interesting. I had heard the other side. The Curia’s concern of giving any secular group their own bishops after what happened with the SSPX. Both have validity.
Benedict XVI dream was certainly that the (the SSPX) get the personal prelature what was promised to them in 1989, and what Archbishop Lefevbre accepted signing the agreement. Naturally this cannot be achieved on that that way that the SSPX dictates to the Church, the hierarchy and through them to our Lord what to do.
Click to expand...
I feel strongly that the prelature is the way to go. It keeps them united, out of trouble and under the direct supervision of the Holy Father. This has worked very well for Opus Dei.
One other possible outcome is a Motu Proprio which accepts individual SSPX communities like the Anglican communities are accepted, leaving the SSPX leadership for their own.
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure about this option. To ME, just me, it feels as if they were being treated as converts, which they’re not. They’re really Catholics in a rather confusing canonical state. In the case of the Anglicans, the clergy, religious and laity are entering into full communion with the Church. That’s not the case with the laity that is sympathetic to the SSPX. There really is no such thing as an SSPX laity. The Society has only clergy and lay-brothers.

I was doing some research to find the status of their lay-brothers. As people may or may not know, a lay-brother is different from a friar or a monk. Friars and monks are also brothers, but we come in two models. 😃 Clerics and non-clerics. But neither is properly part of the laity. Lay-brothers can be either societies or congregations of laymen in vows, such as the Christian Brothers. There is an interesting canonical question. Will the SSPX Brothers have to renew their vows once they are fully integrated.

Here is the glitch. For vows to be canonically valid, they must be received by a Major Superior who is in full communion with the Church. The Major Superior (or his delegate) receives the vows in the name of the Church and in the name of the founder. He is the canonical successor of the founder. Because the Major Superior of the SSPX was excommunicated, he could not validly receive vows in the name of the Church. This is not a matter of doctrine. It’s a matter of discipline, canonical and religious. There are two codes of law that govern here: Canon Law and the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. The SSPX Brothers would be one or the other: consecrated religious or apostolic religious. I believe they are apostolic, like the Christian Bros.

I’ve been a superior and a formation director, but have never seen any rules or legislation on what happens in cases such as this. This is very unique. My thinking is that it would be the same as when entire religious communities or societies of apostolic life enter the Church as one body. They must renew their vows in order to have them received by the Church, otherwise, they are private vows, not public. That’s going to be another interesting development to watch. Does anyone know if the SSPX has women religious?

I know that everyone focuses on the priests of the SSPX. but in fact the brothers are in a more difficult canonical situation than the priests. When you are ordained, as long as the ordination is valid, there is nothing else to do, but to legalize it. You don’t have to re ordain.

But when you make public vows, those must be received by the Church. The person receiving them must have the authorization to receive them. Only the Sacred Congregation for Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life can give that authorization. I’m looking at this and thinking that there are two possible ways of looking at these vows: a) they can be interpreted as private vows or b) they can be interpreted as invalid, because of the absence of ecclesial jurisdiction.

If they are private, they don’t have to be renewed. Simply speaking, the brothers would not be consecrated religious nor apostolic religious. They would be secular men in vows. I get the impression that their intent was to form an Institute of Apostolic Life to support the work of the priestly society. Institutes of Apostolic Life make public vows. I really feel badly for their brothers. I met one on an airplane. Nice guy.

The other problem would be receiving the vows in the name of the founder, but the Holy Father can fix that. If Arch. Lefebvre was their founder, then he is simply written out of the profession of vows, as has been done with the Legionaires. They no longer vow to obey the founder. They have reworded the profession so that it does not mention him. Instead, they vow to obey the current superior and his canonical successors. If the founder of the SSPX Brothers is someone else, who happens to be alive, that presents an interesting canonical situation. I’m not sure how the Sacred Congregation would want to handle that one. 🤷 I’m almost sure that the Holy Father, in his mercy, would not require them to go through novitiate again, only the renewal of vows. I’m not sure if Radical Sanatio can be used in this case. I know that it’s used for marriage vows. :confused:

Have a blessed Triduum everyone,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I’m not so sure about this option. To ME, just me, it feels as if they were being treated as converts, which they’re not. They’re really Catholics in a rather confusing canonical state. In the case of the Anglicans, the clergy, religious and laity are entering into full communion with the Church. That’s not the case with the laity that is sympathetic to the SSPX. There really is no such thing as an SSPX laity. The Society has only clergy and lay-brothers.
Click to expand...
The real need is to make the the quite rough road of the Transalpine Redemptorist’s smoother. Their candidates for priesthood waited for a long time for the ordination due to legal problems. This was unnecessary, and it does not makes difference what will be the name of the union.

The other problem (for reverting units) is the authority of the diocesan bishops. There are many good bishops, with whom there is no problem, but not all bishops are saints; so those reverting need some independence for possibly harming ordinaries.

I too wish for everybody peaceful and graceful celebration of our mysteries.
 
giuseppeTO said:
Without siding with H.E., this tends to diminish the Pope’s credibility on this issue as it gives the impression that one can be excommunicated from the Catholic Faith by not accepting a political (secular) statistic divorced of any connection to an element of our faith. The puzzling part is that I was unaware that there was a known and accepted number of Jews killed in the Holocaust that the Catholic Church approves or ascribes to that should be common enough knowledge and important enough NOT to be contradicted. Secondly, it is disappointing that giving an opinion on this secular fact would be a reason for the Holy Father to withhold the charity he demonstrated to the other bishops by lifting the excommunications. Thirdly, the secular world of course now sees excommunication as a political tool as the ADL has called for Bishop Williamson’s re-excommunication based on the opinion he gave in a television interview that has no bearing on the faith. And finally, to accuse the Bishop of hating Jews based on his understanding of the magnitude of the holocaust is a bit ‘over-the-top’ in my opinion.

I am not defending H.E.'s eccentricities but I do take issue with making it an issue of our Roman Catholic faith with a perceived canonical consequence, or reason enough to otherwise withhold the remedy for a canonical consequence.
Click to expand...
Actually, excommunication can be for any disciplinary reason that the pope decides. The offense need not always be against the faith.

Not trying to get into Pope Benedict’s head here, but just reading what he said. I looks as if he’s saying that the position of the bishop is serious enough for the Pontiff to separate him. That’s the actual wording that he uses. “We would have separated him from the rest.”

He’s not saying, “We would have excommunicated him.” He was already excommunicated. He would have been separated and his excommunication would have been lifted, after he complied with the Holy Father’s order to put distance between himself and that particular position. It comes back to the point of accepting the authority of the pope on any matter in which the pope chooses to impose his authority.

That has always been the case. Papal authority is not limited to faith and morals. Popes have juridical authority as well. They can mandate something that requires assent and it need not be a matter of faith or morals. If you don’t comply and the pope believes that it’s a serious infraction, he can excommunicate. He does not need to appeal to Canon Law, because as the Law-Giver, he is above the law. Canon Law for the Latin Church reminds us that the pope is the supreme Law Giver. He can make any law and apply any consequences that he sees as appropriate.

In this particular case, the Holy Father did not threaten to excommunicate. He regretted not having seen the statement before the lifting of the excommunication. The impression that he gives when he says, “separated him” is that he would have required that the bishop fix the damage done. He makes a very angry statement . . . the angriest that I have ever read from him “I would not introduce an anti-semite into polite society.”

MY belief, is that because there is a history of Bishop Williamson walking a fine line that borders on anti-semiticsm on several occasions, this presents a problem. It is disruptive to the Church’s relationship with the Jews. It’s not an opinion that he keeps to himself. He’s not a pastor in some remote parish where no one pays much attention. He’s a bishop in the spot light. You and I can make such a statement and it doesn’t have an impact on the Church’s work with the Jewish people. When a very well known bishop makes such a statement, it affects her work. If the pope believes that the impact of Bishop Williamson’s position is serious enough, he can make a list of things that he wants to see the Bishop fix before the excommunication is lifted.

I believe that Pope Benedict is not trying to be politically correct. He’s trying to protect a ministry that is very dear to his heart and which he initiated when he was Cardinal Ratzinger: Muslim-Catholic Relations and the other being Jewish-Catholic Relations. He was the president of both commissions. If I’m not mistaken, he is still the president of the committee on Muslim-Catholic Relations. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so. He’s very involved in this ministry, only one step below the ministry of teaching theology, which is his other passion.

Have a Blessed Triduum!

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
laszlo said:
The real need is to make the the quite rough road of the Transalpine Redemptorist’s smoother. Their candidates for priesthood waited for a long time for the ordination due to legal problems. This was unnecessary, and it does not makes difference what will be the name of the union. .
Click to expand...
There were very legitimate reasons for the hold up that were not shared with the lay faithful, because they did not involve the lay faithful . . . not because it was a State Secret.
  1. The Sons of the Holy Redeemer are a religious congregation. Religious must first complete the formation as religious and make valid perpetual vows before they can apply for ordination. There was the whole issue of their vows not being valid, because they made them while excommunicated. That had to be fixed.
  2. They had identified themselves as Redemptorists. However, they were not under the jurisdiction of the Superior General of the Redemptorists. There was a question as to whether they could merge with the Redemptorists or be erected as a separate religious congregation. That had to be sorted out, before they could make their vows again. It was finally agreed that they would not be Redemptorists. That’s why they changed the name to the Congregation of the Sons of the Holy Redeemer.
  3. They could not join the Redemptorists, because the Redemptorists are a missionary congregation. The Transalpine Redemptorists are monastic. They follow two different ways of life. That issue had to be sorted out. The question on the table was “Does the Church want to establish a branch of Redemptorist monks?” The answer that came back was, “Negative”. They had to decide between giving up their monastic identity or giving up their Redemptorist identity. They had to discern this. They opted for a very good compromise. They would be monastic and follow the spirit of St. Alphonse Ligouri, but not his apostolic activity.
  4. Once that was all settled, then there came the issue of the vows. It was determined that they were not valid public vows. They had to renew them. This is why I raised the question about the SSPX Brothers. Because they too are in vows. However, they are not a religious congregation. I’m not sure how you do this for a Society of Apostolic Life. It may be the same. I just don’t know.
In any case, the former Transalpine Redemptorists, now the Sons of the Holy Redeemer, had to go through several Congregations within the Curia to normalize their religious status.

Most lay people do not know this, because it doesn’t affect them. The laws governing religious life are very complicated. And if you have a religious community that has deacons and priests, the laws are even more complicated. In religious life, the Holy Orders, even though it’s a sacrament, is always subordinate to the religious vocation. You have to settle the one before you deal with the other.

Once you decide that all of the laws governing religious life have been satisfied, then you have to raise another question that has to go to another congregation in the curia. “Can this religious family have ordained members?” It is not a given that male religious become priests. Religious life is complete without the priesthood. The priesthood is a vocation within a vocation. Only the Church can decide if a particular religious institute needs priests. It is up to the religious institute to prove to the Church that it would be beneficial in some way.

This takes time. I hope that helps clear things up.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
wisdomseeker said:
What exactly are they rejecting though?
Click to expand...
They are rejecting ALL of the authority of every Pope since Pius XII, and of the validity of Vatican II to make ANY changes to the structure, liturgy, etc. of the Roman Catholic Church.
 
The_Old_Medic said:
They are rejecting ALL of the authority of every Pope since Pius XII, and of the validity of Vatican II to make ANY changes to the structure, liturgy, etc. of the Roman Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Dear Old, That’s a bit inaccurate … actually since Pius V.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top