SSPX talks draw near an end. It does not look good

[JDZwiers19]

"PARIS (Reuters) - Vatican talks with a controversial Catholic splinter group are nearing an end without any accord on reintegrating the ultra-traditionalists, including a bishop whose denial of the Holocaust has embarrassed Pope Benedict.

Bishop Bernard Fellay has said his Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) has not succeeded in convincing Vatican officials to turn Church teaching back half a century to where it stood before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)."

af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE71K55Y20110221

If this story is accurate then it seems the reunification of the SSPX is not going to happen anytime soon.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Okay, this is an honest question so I hope people don’t think I’m trolling or anything:

If the SSPX were to be declared in schism and thus not Catholic (not in communion with Rome), given that we have the FSSP and other traditional societies, what do we really lose here as a Church that the FSSP and the other traditional societies cannot give us? Because the way I always see it, the FSSP has done a marvelous job and instead of wasting our resources with the SSPX, lets put it on the FSSP and grow them. I ask this question because to me we don’t lose anything with the FSSP and the other societies already doing the job they are doing.

 

[ProVobis]

If new bishops can’t be consecrated, that means they’ll eventually die off and the Church will need to look elsewhere to get priests to say the Latin Mass legitimately. Sad if this is true. It will be a double setback if the 2007 SP gets watered down in any way.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If new bishops can’t be consecrated, that means they’ll eventually die off and the Church will need to look elsewhere to get priests to say the Latin Mass legitimately. Sad if this is true. It will be a double setback if the 2007 SP gets watered down in any way.

If they go into schism then they can concecrate their own bishops. But of course they’ll all be out of communion.

But why will this water down SP? As my earlier question stated, isn’t the FSSP and other societies in communion with Rome now enough?

 

[Alexander_Smith]

Okay, this is an honest question so I hope people don’t think I’m trolling or anything:

If the SSPX were to be declared in schism and thus not Catholic (not in communion with Rome), given that we have the FSSP and other traditional societies, what do we really lose here as a Church that the FSSP and the other traditional societies cannot give us? Because the way I always see it, the FSSP has done a marvelous job and instead of wasting our resources with the SSPX, lets put it on the FSSP and grow them. I ask this question because to me we don’t lose anything with the FSSP and the other societies already doing the job they are doing.

I agree. The SSPX is an evil force if it is trying to lead real Catholics into a false type of traditionalism. I’m sure the members of the SSPX believe in what they’re doing, but they are doing noone any good by their actions.

 

[svid]

Please, everyone, pray for them. Pray for all who pridefully break from Holy Mother Church. If only one returns, there will be great joy in Heaven.

 

[ChadS]

Okay, this is an honest question so I hope people don’t think I’m trolling or anything:

If the SSPX were to be declared in schism and thus not Catholic (not in communion with Rome), given that we have the FSSP and other traditional societies, what do we really lose here as a Church that the FSSP and the other traditional societies cannot give us? Because the way I always see it, the FSSP has done a marvelous job and instead of wasting our resources with the SSPX, lets put it on the FSSP and grow them. I ask this question because to me we don’t lose anything with the FSSP and the other societies already doing the job they are doing.

I think what we lose is that there are priests operating that are suspended and don’t have the ability to administer all the sacraments that people so desperately need. There are thousands of lay faithful receiving the sacraments from suspended priests. So any group that is in imperfect communion with Rome is in need of our prayers and we should pray that they can be brought back into full communion and regularize their status.

ChadS

 

[revert_jen]

If the SSPX were to be declared in schism and thus not Catholic (not in communion with Rome), given that we have the FSSP and other traditional societies, what do we really lose here as a Church that the FSSP and the other traditional societies cannot give us?

Everyone that comes into the Church brings us something, and we can be greatful for those gifts. But they are not the primary reason to bring people into the Church. We bring people into the Church because only here can they experience the fullness of the graces that God would like to bestow upon them. You don’t say of your own family, “What do we lose if this particular brother or sister goes away and never returns? The rest of us can get the chores done ourselves.” We love them, and we want them to come home to their family. We can’t make them do it, and we can’t redefine the truth for them to do it, but it is a cause of great sadness to lose them.

In the case of SSPX, there is the additional inducement that the separation of the Christian peoples is a negative witness against the truth of the Gospel, and hinders people from believing in Christ’s message. Any increase in unity is an aid in spreading the Gospel.

It’s NOT about having people to celebrate the EF. The priest who says it at my parish is neither FSSP, SSPX, nor old enough to remember the pre-Vatican II liturgy. It is certainly possible for ordinary diocesan priests to learn how to offer the EF Mass.

–Jen

 

[Timothy17]

Okay, this is an honest question so I hope people don’t think I’m trolling or anything:

If the SSPX were to be declared in schism and thus not Catholic (not in communion with Rome), given that we have the FSSP and other traditional societies, what do we really lose here as a Church that the FSSP and the other traditional societies cannot give us? Because the way I always see it, the FSSP has done a marvelous job and instead of wasting our resources with the SSPX, lets put it on the FSSP and grow them. I ask this question because to me we don’t lose anything with the FSSP and the other societies already doing the job they are doing.

The SSPX are quite possibly the reason the FSSP exists, along with many other pro-traditional societies and initiatives. Of course, our Holy Father was essential in seeing such fruits as the EF come to their fruition, and will be essential in the days ahead in protecting that development.

I am not SPPX, but they have been - to an extent, and for a long time - perhaps the main group defending or demanding clarity and orthodoxy in light of Tradition. They may well have served as a kind of anchor that kept the Church from drifting too far from her roots. Whether or not they are or will be properly styled in schism remains to be seen, but I do not believe history will judge them harshly. What happens next and what they do in the days ahead, of course, is an open question. I do believe it blameless to hold tenaciously to Sacred Tradition, but of course this must be done in obedience to the Magisterium and also in communion with Rome.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[reindeer]

Okay, this is an honest question so I hope people don’t think I’m trolling or anything:

If the SSPX were to be declared in schism and thus not Catholic (not in communion with Rome), given that we have the FSSP and other traditional societies, what do we really lose here as a Church that the FSSP and the other traditional societies cannot give us? Because the way I always see it, the FSSP has done a marvelous job and instead of wasting our resources with the SSPX, lets put it on the FSSP and grow them. I ask this question because to me we don’t lose anything with the FSSP and the other societies already doing the job they are doing.

I just wanted to mention that I attend a church fully staffed by FSSP priests. I think the
advantage to this is that this church isn’t trying to please everyone. I have often read
posts that reveal congregational frustration when both mass forms are attempted in one
church. Sometimes the priests are the ones who desire only one form. I wish there was
full acceptance of both forms so that no conflict occurs. I don’t understand the polemics
of this situation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I just wanted to mention that I attend a church fully staffed by FSSP priests. I think the
advantage to this is that this church isn’t trying to please everyone. I have often read
posts that reveal congregational frustration when both mass forms are attempted in one
church. Sometimes the priests are the ones who desire only one form. I wish there was
full acceptance of both forms so that no conflict occurs. I don’t understand the polemics
of this situation.

From my limited interactions with people, I find that many if not all are not averse to the TLM or EF itself, just to the Latin. Many would embrace the Traditional Mass if it were in the vernacular.

 

[catharina]

I just wanted to mention that I attend a church fully staffed by FSSP priests. I think the
advantage to this is that this church isn’t trying to please everyone. I have often read
posts that reveal congregational frustration when both mass forms are attempted in one
church. Sometimes the priests are the ones who desire only one form. I wish there was
full acceptance of both forms so that no conflict occurs. I don’t understand the polemics
of this situation.

Call me sheltered (and maybe I am)
but I do not know any Catholic
who objects to either form, OF or EF.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The SSPX are quite possibly the reason the FSSP exists, along with many other pro-traditional societies and initiatives. Of course, our Holy Father was essential in seeing such fruits as the EF come to their fruition, and will be essential in the days ahead in protecting that development.

I am not SPPX, but they have been - to an extent, and for a long time - perhaps the main group defending or demanding clarity and orthodoxy in light of Tradition. They may well have served as a kind of anchor that kept the Church from drifting too far from her roots. Whether or not they are or will be properly styled in schism remains to be seen, but I do not believe history will judge them harshly. What happens next and what they do in the days ahead, of course, is an open question. I do believe it blameless to hold tenaciously to Sacred Tradition, but of course this must be done in obedience to the Magisterium and also in communion with Rome.

Pax Christi,
Tim

I agree that the SSPX led the way for the traditional societies of today. But now that we have the FSSP and the other traditional societies, in terms of adherents to the Traditional Mass and other traditional practices of the Church, can we say that we’re have what we need in the Church now?

Also, any SSPX priest who feels they want to come into communion with the Church can break of with the SSPX and join the FSSP, right?

Alexander, I wouldn’t call the SSPX as an evil force. We have many groups in the Church that have good intentions but end up misguided. To me they are “right idea, wrong execution”. The desire to keep tradition is good, but it should never be above the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

As my earlier question stated, isn’t the FSSP and other societies in communion with Rome now enough?

Personally I don’t think so. Many dioceses don’t have a single priest who is qualified to say the Latin Mass. Don’t forget one of the 2007 SP requirements is that the priest has to know “good Latin.” That means several years of training.

That said, even if the talks break down, there is no reason why the SPPX can’t join some order such as the FSSP or form their own order separate from the SSPX, which they were rumored to do from the beginning of the talks anyway. Or they could enter (or get their suspensions removed) one by one. I’ve heard that several already have.

 

[ProVobis]

The SSPX is an evil force if it is trying to lead real Catholics into a false type of traditionalism. I’m sure the members of the SSPX believe in what they’re doing, but they are doing noone any good by their actions.

Would you say this if they decided tomorrow to say the Novus Ordo as well as the Latin Mass?

 

[ProVobis]

I think what we lose is that there are priests operating that are suspended and don’t have the ability to administer all the sacraments that people so desperately need. There are thousands of lay faithful receiving the sacraments from suspended priests. So any group that is in imperfect communion with Rome is in need of our prayers and we should pray that they can be brought back into full communion and regularize their status.

ChadS

And pray for their benefactors who no doubt influence their decisions.

 

[ProVobis]

From my limited interactions with people, I find that many if not all are not averse to the TLM or EF itself, just to the Latin. Many would embrace the Traditional Mass if it were in the vernacular.

This was already tried in the 60’s and failed. Very few embraced it.

 

[ProVobis]

I am not SPPX, but they have been - to an extent, and for a long time - perhaps the main group defending or demanding clarity and orthodoxy in light of Tradition. They may well have served as a kind of anchor that kept the Church from drifting too far from her roots.

Yes, including their very staunch and unyielding support of the pro-life movement. I heard one priest forbid anyone voting for Obama to receive communion from him.

 

[Digitonomy]

If they go into schism…why will this water down SP?

I think most attentive observers foresee some changes to the 1962 missal as time goes on. Already the Good Friday prayer for the Jews has been changed, along with some changes in feast days and so forth - some would call this watering down. It’s a good bet that the conservative and cantankerous group (that’s already left the Church once) would fight tooth and nail to prevent changes, and if negotiations had been successful they might have even had the right in perpetuity to stick with the 1962 missal. So while the logic isn’t rock-solid, it’s a reasonable contention that the missal of 1962 (not Summorum Pontificum, I don’t think) is more likely to be “watered down” in the absence of the SSPX.

 

[JReducation]

Okay, this is an honest question so I hope people don’t think I’m trolling or anything:

If the SSPX were to be declared in schism and thus not Catholic (not in communion with Rome), given that we have the FSSP and other traditional societies, what do we really lose here as a Church that the FSSP and the other traditional societies cannot give us? Because the way I always see it, the FSSP has done a marvelous job and instead of wasting our resources with the SSPX, lets put it on the FSSP and grow them. I ask this question because to me we don’t lose anything with the FSSP and the other societies already doing the job they are doing.

I have several thought on this. My first thought is that I’m disappointed that Bishop Fellay is talking about the talks (sounds redundant). The original agreement was that no one would say anything in public until the final report was issued. The Vatican’s side has kept their end of the bargain. They have not granted a single interview or made a single comment to the press or to the rest of us (clergy and religious).

What is lost if they leave? From an ecclesial perspective, there is a lot lost. You have a schismatic Church on your hands. This is a little different from the Orthodox. Today’s Orthodox are not schismatic. They did not break communion, our ancestors broke communion with each other. After so many centuries, we can talk to each other without the resentment and anger. We were not involved in the argument. We are in schism with each other, not schismatic.

In this case, those who go with the SSPX, if it does choose to leave, would be true schismatic. It would take several generations to get past that. That is a wound to Christian unity.

Pastorally, the loss is not that great. There are other priests who celebrate the EF. That seems to be the paramount concern of many Traditionalist Catholics. SP is not going to be revoked. It may be reworded for clarity. I know that in my own community the question came up that is not answered in SP, do our superiors have to allow our ordained men to celebrate the EF? The answer was “negative”. A priest in a religious order is subordinate to the norms of his order. The next question was, who gets to celebrate it? Should we allow some or should we allow all of our ordained men to do it? Then followed, should we allow the EF to become the conventual mass or only the mass for the laity? Like us, there are others with questions. What everyone is so afraid of is really the answers to these questions and I’m pretty sure that the answers only affect priests who are members of religious orders, especially religious orders run by brothers. Lay people in those parishes would be affected by the decision of the superior. That’s no different from now. If you belong to a parish staffed by religious, their superior is your superior, in a strange sort of way.

The other pastoral concern would be the validity of marriage and absolution. That gets very tricky. Once you’re in schism, canon law no longer applies to you. You are now legally outside of the Catholic Church. Canon Law is for Catholics only. What does that mean for Catholics who get married at an SSPX chapel or go to them for confession? I don’t know the answer. But I would not want to be one of those Catholics. We have to remember, regardless of whether I believe that the SSPX priest has the power to absolve my sins, if the Vatican says that he does not, I can’t overrule the Vatican nor can I claim to know God’s mind on the matter. That’s why we have the Vatican in the first place. That’s a sad situation.

The numbers issue is not as big a concern as people make it sound. The SSPX has about 500 priests. The Franciscans together, number 1.7 million. About 20,000 of that number are priests. The Jesuits have 18,000 or so. The Dominicans have about 15,000. The Salesians have almost 20,000. It sounds impressive to say that they have full seminaries. They also have fewer seminaries than there are houses of formation for religious men. It would be nice to have those 500 priests, but they are not a large number and I highly doubt that if the leadership of the SSPX walks, the 500 priests will walk with them.

Remember, the SSPX are not religious. They are not consecrated men. Only their brothers are consecrated men. Therefore, their priests are really ordained secular men. This leaves them free to walk at any time without any canonical penalty. Even with the SSPX inside the Church, a secular priest who is not incardinated into a diocese can walk without permission. He is obliged to find a bishop to take him in or to become a postulant in a religious community. That’s how the FSSP was born. They just walked out and became an independent secular society. SSPX brothers are another story. They are consecrated religious. Consecrated men cannot walk without permission. The only thing that I can see happen is that the Holy Father will dissolve their vows. They cease to be consecrated men and return to the lay secular state. Then they can walk without sin.

None of these scenarios are pretty. Pretty sad is more like it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF