SSPX Update - Redux

[JReducation]

It’s less that they need to come home, it’s more that they need to take their shoes off and come inside or leave the house so we can stop letting the cold air in. Standing in the shoe foyer isn’t doing anyone any good.

I love the analogy. Can I borrow it?

A big thanks to Br JR. Who may not be as right as he thinks he is but is one of the only reasons the thread or topic is even allowed to continue! Thanks Br JR, you bring civility and common sense to the forum.:choocho::choocho:

What do you mean, “may not be as right as he thinks he is?” I’ll have you know that I’m only responsible for what I say, not for how others hear it.

Civility? Ask the brothers in my congregation if their superior general is civil? The last description I heard about me was, “He’s a hard donkey, but in the end, he’s always right.” You’ll have to replace donkey with another word.

Great analogy! And along with the cold air, we may be letting in a few too many flies.

Based on Br. JR’s last post and the recent statements of Bishop Fellay, it seems that the SSPX is intent on playing a game of legalistic hide and seek to keep their “in, but out” status as long as possible. We may need to get used to that blast of cold air from the foyer.

Remember, I did not accuse them of this. I simply said that I know understand why the SSPX says, “We told them such and such” and the Vatican says “We’re still waiting for an official response.” This was driving me batty wondering how people on the same planet, who have sat in the same room for two years, could be making such contradictory statements. I wanted to believe that neither side is lying. Now I get it. Neither side is lying. But they’re not on the same page either.

Yes congratulations everyone! 1000 posts on a thread about SSPX is cause for hoopla! :grouphugPerhaps our friends in the Society should take our cue)

And thanks a million to Mr. Thomas Casey for his patience and forbearance. He only had to knock heads a couple of times, as I recall, and I had no idea he was watching us that closely.

And btw, whenever Br. JR gets crotchety, it helps to give him a virtual treat, like ice cream or a warm brandy.

“CROTCHETY” What is this? Pick on Brother night. I don’t get crotchety. I may get a little frustrated at times and sometimes I wish I knew how to smack someone via TCP; but I never get crotchety.

By the way, make it brandy. I can’t do ice cream. I’m diabetic. A double brandy, please.

Yes, and I love the way you worked in a little dig with your compliment, lol! But how did it work out for Br. JR to get the very last word in on the first thread? I suspect collusion…

I’m not sure your growth assertions are true. Do you have a source? As far as I can tell, there are many Catholics becoming comfortable with the SSPX all the time, as sour as that might be becoming.

I get the impression that they are not growing as much as they like us to think. They may be growing in some places, but not across the board. For example, in our diocese they have one chapel. This is a diocese of about one million Catholics. I’ve been to mass there twice. They don’t have more than 150 people in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood. There are five Catholic parishes around them each with 5 to 7 masses per weekend There are two Catholic high schools and three Catholic elementary schools in their area. These schools are full.

I’m not sure if I would call what they do indoctrination either. Indoctrination has a sinister sound. It usually serves the purposes and desires of a human leader. I do think that they are very similar to Protestants. However, my take from the local parish that they have and from the many people on the Internet is that they attract a lot of converts from Protestantism. There is that language and that dogmatic rigidity that is so typical a Protestants newly received into Catholicism. I call it the “APS” (Anonymous Protestant Syndrome). With time, it passes.

I see that intensity in the way that they speak and in some things they say. The young men who enter their seminary are either born into their culture or are born into other cultures: mainstream Catholic or Protestant, but are of the same manner of thinking, very rigid and at times very defiant.

This is one of the differences that I see between a Bishop Williamson (RIP) and Fr. Hans Kung. Bishop W is defiant. He’ll stand up there and make statements that include people by name, including people who have a right to command his respect, whether he agrees with them or not. This last speech by Bishop Fellay is approaching the Bishop W style. He still has a ways to go and I hope that he does not go that far.

People like Father Kung don’t have that Protestant approach. When he and others in his school of thought dissent, they disagree with something, but they throw out an alternative. In addition, they don’t go looking for a following or preach to the masses. They write articles and books, teach classes at universities, give lectures when invited, but it’s an academic environment. The Kungs in the Catholic Church don’t bother with the man in the pews. That’s not their intended audience.

The Protestant style of rebellion is to move the people in the pews to align themselves with you. I’ve seen that every time there is a split within a congregation. That’s how you seem to get the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Christian Church of Happyville. It’s not just stating a point. There is a campaign involved. The Kungs don’t campaign. That’s just not the cradle Catholic style.

Those are my two cents.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

Yes, and I love the way you worked in a little dig with your compliment, lol!

Love is not the word that I would use. Talk about a backhanded compliment.

But how did it work out for Br. JR to get the very last word in on the first thread? I suspect collusion…:ehh:

That’s easy. Ask and you shall receive. This is actually true. I was responding when I noticed that we had gone past 1,000. I know that 1,000 is the limit. I’m surprised the we got past it. Anyway, I’m good friend with Bl. John Paul. I said an ejaculation to Bl. John Paul and typed as quickly as my little fingers could go.

Bl. John Paul has never let me down. I’m working on getting another miracle from him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[maltmom]

But how did it work out for Br. JR to get the very last word in on the first thread? I suspect collusion…:ehh:

They saved the best for last!!!

 

[triumphguy]

…

This is one of the differences that I see between a Bishop Williamson (RIP) and Fr. Hans Kung. Bishop W is defiant. He’ll stand up there and make statements that include people by name, including people who have a right to command his respect, whether he agrees with them or not. This last speech by Bishop Fellay is approaching the Bishop W style. He still has a ways to go and I hope that he does not go that far.

People like Father Kung don’t have that Protestant approach. When he and others in his school of thought dissent, they disagree with something, but they throw out an alternative. In addition, they don’t go looking for a following or preach to the masses. They write articles and books, teach classes at universities, give lectures when invited, but it’s an academic environment. The Kungs in the Catholic Church don’t bother with the man in the pews. That’s not their intended audience.

The Protestant style of rebellion is to move the people in the pews to align themselves with you. I’ve seen that every time there is a split within a congregation. That’s how you seem to get the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Christian Church of Happyville. It’s not just stating a point. There is a campaign involved. The Kungs don’t campaign. That’s just not the cradle Catholic style.

Those are my two cents.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Is he dead?

 

[chero23]

Since this post is about the SSPX and the possibility of them uniting with the Catholic Church. Do you see other big religions or denominations doing so too? We constantly here of dialogues between the church and the Orthodox Church. That would be 2, SSPX and the Orthodox Church. I have also seen by the news that come out of the Middle East especially Egypt, that the Coptic Christian church is having a hard time against Muslims. Does anybody see them having dialogues with the Vatican to be reinstated back in the church after almost 1500 yrs?

 

[jeannetherese]

That’s easy. Ask and you shall receive. This is actually true. I was responding when I noticed that we had gone past 1,000. I know that 1,000 is the limit. I’m surprised the we got past it. Anyway, I’m good friend with Bl. John Paul. I said an ejaculation to Bl. John Paul and typed as quickly as my little fingers could go.

Bl. John Paul has never let me down. I’m working on getting another miracle from him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Hey Brother JR, Next time you are praying for a miracle, maybe you could ante up the request a bit?

 

[Melchior_1]

I love the analogy. Can I borrow it?

Of course you can borrow it

Since this post is about the SSPX and the possibility of them uniting with the Catholic Church. Do you see other big religions or denominations doing so too? We constantly here of dialogues between the church and the Orthodox Church. That would be 2, SSPX and the Orthodox Church. I have also seen by the news that come out of the Middle East especially Egypt, that the Coptic Christian church is having a hard time against Muslims. Does anybody see them having dialogues with the Vatican to be reinstated back in the church after almost 1500 yrs?

The Anglicans have come back. What I find interesting is the style of how the Anglicans have come back, in the sense it very closely resembles how the Eastern Churches have come back. The Anglicans retain their customs and 99% of their liturgy.

 

[chero23]

Of course you can borrow it

The Anglicans have come back. What I find interesting is the style of how the Anglicans have come back, in the sense it very closely resembles how the Eastern Churches have come back. The Anglicans retain their customs and 99% of their liturgy.

But the Anglicans are coming back in waves right? Not the entire church?

 

[Moore11]

What do you mean, “may not be as right as he thinks he is?” I’ll have you know that I’m only responsible for what I say, not for how others hear it.

Civility? Ask the brothers in my congregation if their superior general is civil? The last description I heard about me was, “He’s a hard donkey, but in the end, he’s always right.” You’ll have to replace donkey with another word.

Br. JR, FFV

Ya just couldn’t help yourself could ya. You had to point out that you are right…

 

[Melchior_1]

But the Anglicans are coming back in waves right? Not the entire church?

True, not the entire church, however it does show that the odds are good a similar structure will be set up for others. Historical precedent and all of that.

The difference for the SSPX, again, is that they are Catholic within the Latin (Western) Rite. The fact they have been offered any provisions like a post-Vatican II prelature is a bonus, when the reality is that they could be commanded to come back or face schism. Ironically if they want any special treatment, they’ll receive it via post-Vatican II items like a prelature or Society of Apostolic Life.

That there is dialogue at all shows the true charitable nature of Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

And aren’t they (un)officially down to three bishops since Bishop Williamson was sanctioned recently?

No, waiting isn’t sustainable, but I had was so hopeful over the summer that the reconcilliation would happen.

I have never been to an SSPX chapel/Mass. I do have friends who were involved in the lay movements of Legionaries of Christ (Regnum Christi). I realize that are totally different groups and situations, but the “brainwashing” atmosphere is the similar.

It is very hard to think of ordinary people being so isolated that they cannot see the true beauty of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church headed by the successor of Peter.

If I was a betting man, I would bet a year’s salary there will be no reconciliation between the SSPX and Rome in our lifetimes, if ever.

The problem is the foundation stone of the SSPX’s position. It is not the Tridentine Mass, nor it is opposition to the liturgical abuses. It is not even anti-Modernism. It is a rejection of Vatican II and the New Mass as such. For reconciliation two things are needed:

1. That the SSPX recognise that the New Mass, as it is printed in the Missal, does not, in any of its prayers or rites, contain anything that would oblige a Catholic in conscience to stay away from it. This is distinct from the way the OF is actually celebrated in some parishes. It is also distinct from the question of whether the prayers could have been better phrased and whether the New Mass should or should not have more closely resembled the Tridentine rite. The point is: it is acceptable and, presuming it is decently celebrated, no Catholic, even the most Traditional, can call it gravely objectionable. This the SSPX is radically unable to accept.
2. That the SSPX recognise that the documents of Vatican II, inasmuch as they form part of the Church’s Magisterium, must be accepted as such. This can go with a clarification of the precise meaning of several passages of these documents, and it can go with a recognition of the fact that several passages, by the nature of their subject matter, do not fall under the Church’s Magisterium (which itself covers only Faith and morals). However, the doctrinal parts of Vatican II must be accepted, and the non doctrinal parts also accepted unless one can demonstrate that there is an irreconcilable problem with them. This too the SSPX is radically unable to accept.

It is this that is the origin of the profound mistrust of the Church that is fundamental to an SSPXer. The mistrust feeds the rejection, and the rejection feeds the mistrust. I can see no end to it as the Church can never rescind Vatican II and I think it highly unlikely it will ever repudiate the New Mass (maybe just reform it somewhat). Lose-lose situation folks.

 

[JReducation]

Is he dead?

No no no. RIP is a term used in the religious life when someone has left or has been dismissed. We call them dearly departed.

Since this post is about the SSPX and the possibility of them uniting with the Catholic Church. Do you see other big religions or denominations doing so too? We constantly here of dialogues between the church and the Orthodox Church. That would be 2, SSPX and the Orthodox Church. I have also seen by the news that come out of the Middle East especially Egypt, that the Coptic Christian church is having a hard time against Muslims. Does anybody see them having dialogues with the Vatican to be reinstated back in the church after almost 1500 yrs?

We can’t deal with the Orthodox and the SSPX the same way for many reasons.

The Orthodox are real Churches with Apostolic Succession.

The Orthodox are not schismatics

The Orthodox are not under the jurisdiction of Rome

What separates the Orthodox and the Catholics are theological issues; however, they must approach the table as equals, because both the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches are real Churches with valid and licit sacraments. They have equal Apostolic Succession. Neither can claim to be more apostolic than the other. Though some people try.

What separates the SSPX is discipline. The SSPX is a Catholic institute that for its particular reasons refuses to back down and accept what Rome commands. We’re not going to get into the validity of their reasons. Suffice it to say that when the boss tells you that he wants you to do something this is not contrary to the Commandments, you have a duty to comply. If you refuse to comply, then we have a disciplinary problem on our hands.

In this case, the disciplinary problem is caused by a disagreement on theological issues. The problem could be caused by anything else as well. It could be over money or property, whatever.

As far as the Church is concerned, the behavior of the SSPX is unacceptable, because it confronts authority and turns its back on authority.

Hey Brother JR, Next time you are praying for a miracle, maybe you could ante up the request a bit?

LOL, that was not the miracle that I want John Paul to work on. I know a single mother who has an inoperable tumor on her brain. I’ve been preparing her for death. However, I found that my daughter has a first class relic of Bl. John Paul. She has a piece of his hair in a reliquary. He gave it to her in an audience when she was 15. She’s 29 now. She’s flying it down for me to put on the stand next to my friend.

 

[JReducation]

If I was a betting man, I would bet a year’s salary there will be no reconciliation between the SSPX and Rome in our lifetimes, if ever.

The problem is the foundation stone of the SSPX’s position. It is not the Tridentine Mass, nor it is opposition to the liturgical abuses. It is not even anti-Modernism. It is a rejection of Vatican II and the New Mass as such. For reconciliation two things are needed:

1. That the SSPX recognise that the New Mass, as it is printed in the Missal, does not, in any of its prayers or rites, contain anything that would oblige a Catholic in conscience to stay away from it. This is distinct from the way the OF is actually celebrated in some parishes. It is also distinct from the question of whether the prayers could have been better phrased and whether the New Mass should or should not have more closely resembled the Tridentine rite. The point is: it is acceptable and, presuming it is decently celebrated, no Catholic, even the most Traditional, can call it gravely objectionable. This the SSPX is radically unable to accept.
2. That the SSPX recognise that the documents of Vatican II, inasmuch as they form part of the Church’s Magisterium, must be accepted as such. This can go with a clarification of the precise meaning of several passages of these documents, and it can go with a recognition of the fact that several passages, by the nature of their subject matter, do not fall under the Church’s Magisterium (which itself covers only Faith and morals). However, the doctrinal parts of Vatican II must be accepted, and the non doctrinal parts also accepted unless one can demonstrate that there is an irreconcilable problem with them. This too the SSPX is radically unable to accept.

It is this that is the origin of the profound mistrust of the Church that is fundamental to an SSPXer. The mistrust feeds the rejection, and the rejection feeds the mistrust. I can see no end to it as the Church can never rescind Vatican II and I think it highly unlikely it will ever repudiate the New Mass (maybe just reform it somewhat). Lose-lose situation folks.

You’re right, but I would also add that even if the priest acted like a total idiot at mass, as long as the mass is valid; there is no justification for a Catholic to miss mass on a Sunday.

Secondly, Pope Benedict explained that there can be no error in the documents of Vatican II including those that do not deal with dogma and morals. Those documents are the product of a council that is protected from error. There can be problems with implementation. There can always be a better word here or there or a change in sentence structure to make clearer an idea. But there can be nothing in the documents that is an error. He said this in October during the celebration of the 50th anniversary of Vatican II.

It was later repeated by several cardinals and archbishops of the curia who were present and heard him say it. Anyone who watched the 50th anniversary mass on EWTN would have heard him say this in his homily. I believe that he deliberately included this as a message to those out there who say that there can be error in non moral and non dogmatic content.

The other condition that the SSPX has been told that it must accept is the Pope Benedict is the Magisterium and he alone decides what is and is not part of tradition. It is the Magisterium of the popes. The SSPX uses the term Magisterium almost interchangeably with tradition. The term magisterium is attached to an office, the teaching office of Peter. The Magister is the current pope, not the pope who lived 100 years ago. They have a tough time with this one and this one is de fide. They admit that it is de fide. But they can’t bring themselves to agree with Pope Benedict. It’s a Catch-22 situation. As you say, a no win situation.

If they never come back, which I hope they do come back, then we have a schism. They will not fit into the Catholic or the Orthodox community. They will be the first of an entire new apostolic line. What a mess.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Justin_Swanton]

As long as Canon Law says that you need faculties granted by a legitimate ordinary in order to absolve, then you need such faculties. If you go to confession on Sat for an SSPX priest who has no faculties to absolve you and you are run down by a bus on Sunday, then you’re out of luck.

You’re right, but I would also add that even if the priest acted like a total idiot at mass, as long as the mass is valid; there is no justification for a Catholic to miss mass on a Sunday.

If I may stick my neck out, it seems there is a certain positivism in this approach, in the sense that if something is declared legal, it is automatically and in every case right, whereas if it is declared illegal, it is automatically and in every case wrong. I am no canonist and don’t pretend to be one, but I know enough about Canon law to know that the laws cannot predict and cover every possible circumstance that might arise. When they don’t, one is obliged to apply a number of fundamental principles to see if the case in question falls under the law or not.

In the case of Sunday Mass, the legislator could not and did not conceive of the circus celebrations that took and to some extent still take place. The guiding principle behind the Sunday Mass obligation was the need for the faithful to gain the supernatural benefit from Mass which they need to maintain themselves spiritually (others can put it in better words). This would be a normal Sunday Mass celebrated with recollection and reverence. A circus Mass is something else again, and whatever kind of reactions it provokes in those attending it, one cannot pretend that they are in any way supernatural. As a liturgy it fails in its purpose, hence falls away from the principle that guided the legislator in making the Mass mandatory on Sunday. One isn’t obliged to go to it.

As regards poor Joe Trad, if his confession is invalid then he has been set up for a legal trap. A Catholic is required to do whatever is necessary to secure the good of his soul. If in mortal sin, he is obliged to go to a confession that, in good conscience, he is convinced is valid. Joe did this. It wouldn’t cross his mind to confess his sin again. Five years could pass before the accident that carries him off. But according to the positivist approach he is still damned. Sorry, but the law is made for man, not man for the law. The law says that a priest without faculties cannot validly hear confession. Well and good. But the law also states: prima lex salus animarum - the first law is the salvation of souls. Law cannot become a trap to send souls of good will to hell. Good will must be met by God’s grace. Joe is either absolved or God makes an exception about the imperfect contrition limitation and forgives Joe directly.

 

[Boulder257]

Two things:

1. First the previous thread, and I am sure this one, really is a testament to the people who participated. Many of us don’t agree and we all know who we are. However, the charity was just as clear and that’s to be commended. Also, thank you to our moderator for allowing us the room we needed to discuss, but at the same time providing the boundaries that were necessary to keep the discussion fruitful. I learned a great deal from that last thread and look forward to learning more from each of you.
2. For those that think Brother JR may not be as right as often as he thinks - I said the same thing about my parents when I was a teenager. Turns out they WERE right, I just needed to mature.

 

[Boulder257]

It’s less that they need to come home, it’s more that they need to take their shoes off and come inside or leave the house so we can stop letting the cold air in. Standing in the shoe foyer isn’t doing anyone any good.

Although it’s been said earlier, I had to echo the comments that this is a great analogy. As with the others, I hope you don’t mind if I borrow it. Hopefully I can remember it correctly and don’t end up with something like, “They need to take off their shoes and feel the cold air before they end up in the foyer.” That’s usually what happens to me when I try to use something like this in a conversation where I don’t have the benefit of revision.

 

[Melchior_1]

If I may stick my neck out, it seems there is a certain positivism in this approach, in the sense that if something is declared legal, it is automatically and in every case right, whereas if it is declared illegal, it is automatically and in every case wrong.

I think some folks (myself included) are getting annoyed that people are passing off SSPX Masses and the like as “oh, it’s only illicit!” Masses being stripped of their legality due to obedience issues and lack of faculties is a huge deal. Especially when people pass it off as no biggie, then rage against either:

1. Other illicit actions.
2. Valid and licit actions they simply don’t like.

I am no canonist and don’t pretend to be one, but I know enough about Canon law to know that the laws cannot predict and cover every possible circumstance that might arise. When they don’t, one is obliged to apply a number of fundamental principles to see if the case in question falls under the law or not.

Which is why we have the one with the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, the chief justice of Canon Law. So when he says “no legitimate ministry”, that means “no legitimate ministry”.

In the case of Sunday Mass, the legislator could not and did not conceive of the circus celebrations that took and to some extent still take place. The guiding principle behind the Sunday Mass obligation was the need for the faithful to gain the supernatural benefit from Mass which they need to maintain themselves spiritually (others can put it in better words). This would be a normal Sunday Mass celebrated with recollection and reverence. A circus Mass is something else again, and whatever kind of reactions it provokes in those attending it, one cannot pretend that they are in any way supernatural. As a liturgy it fails in its purpose, hence falls away from the principle that guided the legislator in making the Mass mandatory on Sunday. One isn’t obliged to go to it.

If the only choices are CIRCUS MASS WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO and invalid Mass, an argument could be made that you need to go to the CIRCUS MASS (woooo!) because an invalid Mass isn’t even a Mass due to no Eucharist being there.

Meanwhile, I would say that a CIRCUS MASS (woo!) is also illicit, so this is a poor comparison. You’re comparing oranges to tangerines.

Otherwise, one can justify all sorts of reasons to miss Mass.

As regards poor Joe Trad, if his confession is invalid then he has been set up for a legal trap. A Catholic is required to do whatever is necessary to secure the good of his soul. If in mortal sin, he is obliged to go to a confession that, in good conscience, he is convinced is valid. Joe did this. It wouldn’t cross his mind to confess his sin again. Five years could pass before the accident that carries him off. But according to the positivist approach he is still damned. Sorry, but the law is made for man, not man for the law. The law says that a priest without faculties cannot validly hear confession. Well and good. But the law also states: prima lex salus animarum - the first law is the salvation of souls. Law cannot become a trap to send souls of good will to hell. Good will must be met by God’s grace. Joe is either absolved or God makes an exception about the imperfect contrition limitation and forgives Joe directly.

Those who receive SSPX confessions are in the same boat as those who aren’t within the Church; trust in God’s Divine Mercy.

 

[agnes_therese]

I think some folks (myself included) are getting annoyed that people are passing off SSPX Masses and the like as “oh, it’s only illicit!” Masses being stripped of their legality due to obedience issues and lack of faculties is a huge deal.

This is exactly why I have never attended an SSPX Mass. They do have a chapel in the area, and I would love to attended a Tridentine Mass for the first time since I was about 7 (which I firmly believe was the initial impetus to my conversion to Catholicism several decades later). But I just don’t feel comfortable supporting what I see as their defiance of the Vatican.

 

[Boulder257]

The Latin Mass is still practiced WITHIN the Church. Therefore, you may be closer to attending one than you think. Here is a link to a site that provides a listing of all Latin Masses throughout the US. This list is compiled by the Ecclesia Dei commission, so you can be comfortable in that they are both valid and licit. ecclesiadei.org/masses.cfm

 

[PaulinVA]

I think some folks (myself included) are getting annoyed that people are passing off SSPX Masses and the like as “oh, it’s only illicit!” Masses being stripped of their legality due to obedience issues and lack of faculties is a huge deal. Especially when people pass it off as no biggie, then rage against either:

1. Other illicit actions.
2. Valid and licit actions they simply don’t like.

I think it was Cardinal Levada (or Castrillón Hoyos) who said that you could attend SSPX Masses as long as it was to fullfill your Sunday obligation or because of a love for the Ordinary Form, and that you were careful not to “imbibe of the schismatic mentality”.

Well, it seems that the SSPX clergy has fully bought into that* mentality*. I acknowledge they are not in formal schism. So, the laity that goes to the SSPX chapel every week, it seems, is certainly imbibing (Absorb or assimilate (ideas or knowledge)) that mentality if they go to confession or, gulp, have their marriage officiated, at the local SSPX chapel.

What is confusing to me is the Vatican’s reaction to this practice. Which is, there is no reaction.