SSPX Update - Redux

[Boulder257]

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.

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

 

[Rich_C]

This is a very interesting idea. Scary too, because it acknowledges that the Society is an isolated, insular group. It also says to me that they aren’t drawing in many new people. Their growth is based on family growth of those people who “defected” in the 70s. Their priests are children of the original group who have had very little interaction with the larger world.

Just a thought on your use of the term “defected” from someone who has never been to the SSPX but knows something about the history of those times:

You have to remember two things:

1. The SSPX people “joined” in the early 1970s was not in trouble with the hierarchy.
2. These people “joined” the SSPX because it **appeared to be in continuity and agreement **with the Catholic Church, while all around them the parishes destroyed their sacred art, deformed their ceremonies, and distorted Catholic teaching. Everything appeared to be going off the deep end *except *the SSPX.

With hindsight we can see where the Society leadership went wrong, but I really think we need to have more compassion for the faithful whose ordinary shepards let them down, and turned to what looked and sounded familiar and true.

 

[ringil]

The problem with waiting is that it isn’t sustainable. For them to continue to function as they are, they need Bishops to ordain more priests. After the four current Bishops pass away, there will be none left. Unless:

1. They find other Bishops to join them, and continue the work.
2. Ordain new Bishops, and we saw how well that worked out for them last time.

Benedict knows this, especially #2, which is why I think there is a some urgency involved with this.

But the Bishops are RELATIVELY young. Maybe they are waiting for a new Pope.

 

[Melchior_1]

Just a thought on your use of the term “defected” from someone who has never been to the SSPX but knows something about the history of those times:

You have to remember two things:

1. The SSPX people “joined” in the early 1970s was not in trouble with the hierarchy.
2. These people “joined” the SSPX because it **appeared to be in continuity and agreement **with the Catholic Church, while all around them the parishes destroyed their sacred art, deformed their ceremonies, and distorted Catholic teaching. Everything appeared to be going off the deep end *except *the SSPX.

With hindsight we can see where the Society leadership went wrong, but I really think we need to have more compassion for the faithful whose ordinary shepards let them down, and turned to what looked and sounded familiar and true.

The same can be said during several time periods within the history of the Church. During other times when people performed schismatic acts, the acts and those who performed them are typically looked down upon. However whenever the schismatic act benefits what people would like or if they are sympathetic, they tend to brush it off.

Given the choice between His Grace Lefebvre and Francis/Dominic (the Church on Earth wasn’t doing too hot at the time back then), who should we emulate and hold as the ideal for handling situations?

But the Bishops are RELATIVELY young. Maybe they are waiting for a new Pope.

They’re on Pope #2 now. I doubt #3 is going to change his tune.

 

[sw85]

This is somewhat tangential, but does anyone know where SSPX priests tend to go on ordination? I was wondering the same thing about the FSSP. I doubt either organization has the resources to sustain personal parishes in which to house all their priests, and I’m sure some are sent to dioceses to help out with the priest shortage (this was done, for instance, in Bp. Morlino’s diocese), but is there anything else they do? Run missions abroad, etc.?

 

[Rich_C]

The same can be said during several time periods within the history of the Church. During other times when people performed schismatic acts, the acts and those who performed them are typically looked down upon. However whenever the schismatic act benefits what people would like or if they are sympathetic, they tend to brush it off.

Given the choice between His Grace Lefebvre and Francis/Dominic (the Church on Earth wasn’t doing too hot at the time back then), who should we emulate and hold as the ideal for handling situations?

Melchior, I don’t think rhetorical questions like this are constructive or add anything to the conversation.

It seems that showing any sympathy for Catholics involved with the Society grinds your gears. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s how your posts come off.

I dislike talking about other Catholics without trying to find good faith in them first. Don’t you feel the same?

And since you’ve asked other people this in the preceding thread, I’ll add: yes, I try to be as charitable to those on the other end of the spectrum.

 

[TimothyH]

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.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Add an “sm” to the (acknowledgement) packet.

For Windows:

1. 
   *]Point to Start → All Programs → Accessories and click Command Prompt. Type “TCP.exe \syn:set-sm=true”
   *]Press the Enter key
   *] Ignore the prompt to enter the name of the next Pope and just press the Enter key again.
   *]Reboot
   
   Now any time you submit a message containing the text “We always have to remember” on any message board, the person to whom you are replying will recieve a non-lethal but highly painful electric shock from their mouse as soon as they click into the forum.
   
   The only minor inconvenience is that all of your fonts will now be grey and your “T” will look a little droopy at the top.
   
   There is freeware somewhere to enable this on a Mac.
   
   -Tim-

 

[Mike30]

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.

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”.

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.

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

So at an SSPX Mass there is no valid Eucharist? I have heard differently and just want to be sure. In fact, if I am not mistaken Brother JR has said that SSPX Priests can confect a valid Eucharist. Am I missing something here?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Just a thought on your use of the term “defected” from someone who has never been to the SSPX but knows something about the history of those times:

You have to remember two things:

1. The SSPX people “joined” in the early 1970s was not in trouble with the hierarchy.
2. These people “joined” the SSPX because it **appeared to be in continuity and agreement **with the Catholic Church, while all around them the parishes destroyed their sacred art, deformed their ceremonies, and distorted Catholic teaching. Everything appeared to be going off the deep end *except *the SSPX.

With hindsight we can see where the Society leadership went wrong, but I really think we need to have more compassion for the faithful whose ordinary shepards let them down, and turned to what looked and sounded familiar and true.

Correct. I was not living inthe US in the early 70s and was young enough that I wouldn’t have been paying attention anyway. When we returned to the US we came back to the Arlington diocese which has always been relatively conservative and quiet.

I have never been to a gather round the altar, consecrate grape juice type of Mass in my life. Even with travelling and going to Mass in many different parts of the US and other countries. I do tend to think that people exaggerate how bad things really are or really got, but having no first hand experience I can’t really say.

All that said though, the early 70s were 40 years ago and things have changed quite a bit in that time. For adults - and especially converts - to join the SSPX now is actually shocking to me. I agree that there is a fundamentalist mindset that is attracted to the very black and white “us vs the world” view. But it is in a sense going from protestant to protestant.

 

[Rich_C]

Correct. I was not living inthe US in the early 70s and was young enough that I wouldn’t have been paying attention anyway. When we returned to the US we came back to the Arlington diocese which has always been relatively conservative and quiet.

I have never been to a gather round the altar, consecrate grape juice type of Mass in my life. Even with travelling and going to Mass in many different parts of the US and other countries. I do tend to think that people exaggerate how bad things really are or really got, but having no first hand experience I can’t really say.

All that said though, the early 70s were 40 years ago and things have changed quite a bit in that time. For adults - and especially converts - to join the SSPX now is actually shocking to me. I agree that there is a fundamentalist mindset that is attracted to the very black and white “us vs the world” view. But it is in a sense going from protestant to protestant.

I tend to think that the really outrageous stories were not that common, but that for most of those who left (and we have to remember that million of Catholics apparently left completely, not just “joined” the SSPX) it was having everything change all at once that was too shocking to bear. I dare say, we might not have done any differently in their shoes. I’m grateful I wasn’t there.

However, I agree with you about adults who "join it today. It really troubles me how some of them justify the Society’s position with so much anger. On the other hand, I know people who have gone there just to escape bad diocesan situations and don’t have the ideology. Until recently I was under the impression that PCED allowed them to assist under limited circumstances.

 

[Melchior_1]

Melchior, I don’t think rhetorical questions like this are constructive or add anything to the conversation.

I think it’s quite acceptable to compare how Catholics handled trying times in the past versus trying times in the present.

It seems that showing any sympathy for Catholics involved with the Society grinds your gears. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s how your posts come off.

Do I lack sympathy? No. I understand why they do what they do and did what they did. I happen to very much disagree with the “ends justify the means” mentality though, which is why I’m often not a fan of their actions and express said displeasure. Do I lack patience with the situation? Probably. That’s one of many reasons why Benedict XVI will be a Saint and I won’t be. Posting my opinion on the SSPX and disagreeing with how they handle things does not mean I have an axe to grind against them, or those who are sympathetic though.

I think you’re reading a bit too much into my posts. For the most part I feel I’ve been quite objective and charitable, otherwise Thomas would have had me take a time out before.

So at an SSPX Mass there is no valid Eucharist? I have heard differently and just want to be sure. In fact, if I am not mistaken Brother JR has said that SSPX Priests can confect a valid Eucharist. Am I missing something here?

The SSPX has valid Eucharist, I wasn’t referring to them in that sentence.

 

[JReducation]

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.

Let’s begin with this point. Canon Law is not concerned with the effects of the mass on the faithful. The word “love” and “grace” are not part of Canon Law, because you can’t legislate this. Canon Law is concerned with justice due to God and man. In justice to God, man must worship on the Lord’s Day. Failure to do so, when there is a valid Catholic mass available is a failure in justice to God. That’s how we’re trained.

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.

In this case, the Church supplies if Joe does is convinced that the absolution is valid, because he knows nothing about jurisdiction and does not know that a suspended priest cannot absolve.

The absolution is invalid if Joe knows the rules and blows it off, because in his mind, the SSPX is right and the law is wrong. There is an attitude here, that complicates his situation. He is judging the law. As St. Paul says, you can’t be judges of the law. This has been Church tradition for 2,000 years. It began with Clement of Rome.

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.

Joe can certainly be absolved from his sin, but he is absolved because of his contrition. The absolution comes from God, but not through the priest. The law does not say that the person cannot be absolved at all. It only says that the absolution granted by the priest is invalid.

If we believed that only through a priest can one be absolved, there would be no non Catholics or non Orthodox in heaven, since we’re the only ones who have priests with the power to absolve.

The law concerning confession and absolution does not contradict the prime directive, which is the salvation of souls, because there are other means to attain absolution. The Church, in order to make the salvation of souls as extensive as possible, believes and teaches that even without sacramental absolution one can be absolved from sin. The how gets us into the whole area of apologetics, which is not the subject of this thread.

The situation remains the same, no suspended priest or laicized priest can absolve in an ordinary situation. All priests in the SSPX are suspended.

 

[JReducation]

As my confrere who is a canon layer said to me once, in the defense of the lay traditionalist, one has to be careful not to interpret the law so broadly as to give the priests of the SSPX a pass when they violate the law. Either they’re Catholic priests, in which case they are bound by the law or they are not bound by the law, because a) they are not Catholic, b) they are not Latin Catholic or c) they have a dispensation from the law.

What he mentioned was that in justice, one must also remember the justice due to God and to the Church, not just the justice to the lay faithful. A Franciscan Sister, who is also a canon lawyer, with whom I discussed this question said, Canon Law has nothing to do with love. The word love is not even mentioned. Ven Paul VI and Bl. John Paul deliberately left our words like love to ensure that the law is applied as dispassionately as is humanly possible.

They’re both saying that when we throw in our concerns (which are rooted in love) then we loose our distance. The law requires distance. Roman law is not like English law. Roman Law is very black and white. It has very few “if . . . then scenarios”. When one of those comes up, only the pope can speak to it. No Canon Lawyer, no individual and no tribunal can state what is not part of the canonical tradition. The law has a tradition.

This I remember from studying law in the seminary. You can’t take the law as it is written. That would be dangerous. You must know three things. 1) what the law says, 2) the mind of the author and 3) the tradition behind this law, if it’s a laws that has been carried forward in history. With that information, then you can say with certain security “the law means this or that”.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

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.

The statement was made by Cardinal Hoyos, repeated by Cardinal Levada and implied in SP by Pope Benedict.

Here is an interesting turn of events. When UE was issued to clarify SP, the Pope laid down a rule. The only people who can approach a bishop to ask for the EF mass are those who ARE NOT part of a group that is not in full communion. Everyone, including the leadership of the SSPX, understood that he was referring to the laity that SUBSCRIBES to the SSPX way of thinking.

Let’s try to understand why those Catholics forfeit their right to approach a bishop to ask for an EF mass. The answer is in the first statement. It is one thing to attend the mass at the SSPX chapel because you need the EF for your spiritual journey and it is another to SUBSCRIBE to the SSPX worldview. Those who subscribe to the SSPX world view have placed themselves in the same situation as the SSPX priests. To use the analogy used before, they’re at the door with the door open. They are neither in nor out. Until they define their position, they cannot make requests from the bishops. Either submit to the local bishop or they take the position of the SSPX that says that the local bishop can be bypassed and at times avoided.

There is the real issue. As time passes and the rhetoric of the SSPX clergy becomes more inflammatory, I’m truly afraid that many who simply want their EF mass at some point or another are going to be contaminated by the rhetoric and they’re going to start to believe it and repeat it. When that happens, they will have crossed the line.

I do agree that the Vatican has remained silent on this issue far too long. It’s time that it issue a statement about the laity and put the SSPX priests on hold for a moment. I don’t work at the Vatican so I can’t tell them what to do. As St.Francis said, “we reform the world in which we live and let God send someone to reform the rest.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

Add an “sm” to the (acknowledgement) packet.

For Windows:

1. 
   *]Point to Start → All Programs → Accessories and click Command Prompt. Type “TCP.exe \syn:set-sm=true”
   *]Press the Enter key
   *] Ignore the prompt to enter the name of the next Pope and just press the Enter key again.
   *]Reboot
   
   Now any time you submit a message containing the text “We always have to remember” on any message board, the person to whom you are replying will recieve a non-lethal but highly painful electric shock from their mouse as soon as they click into the forum.
   
   The only minor inconvenience is that all of your fonts will now be grey and your “T” will look a little droopy at the top.
   
   There is freeware somewhere to enable this on a Mac.
   
   -Tim-

1. 
   :rotf:

 

[Lormar]

Melchior, I don’t think rhetorical questions like this are constructive or add anything to the conversation.

It seems that showing any sympathy for Catholics involved with the Society grinds your gears. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s how your posts come off.

I dislike talking about other Catholics without trying to find good faith in them first. Don’t you feel the same?

And since you’ve asked other people this in the preceding thread, I’ll add: yes, I try to be as charitable to those on the other end of the spectrum.

I have to agree with Rich.

It is good to remember the old AA saying: there but for the grace of God go I.

 

[Mike30]

I think it’s quite acceptable to compare how Catholics handled trying times in the past versus trying times in the present.

Do I lack sympathy? No. I understand why they do what they do and did what they did. I happen to very much disagree with the “ends justify the means” mentality though, which is why I’m often not a fan of their actions and express said displeasure. Do I lack patience with the situation? Probably. That’s one of many reasons why Benedict XVI will be a Saint and I won’t be. Posting my opinion on the SSPX and disagreeing with how they handle things does not mean I have an axe to grind against them, or those who are sympathetic though.

I think you’re reading a bit too much into my posts. For the most part I feel I’ve been quite objective and charitable, otherwise Thomas would have had me take a time out before.

The SSPX has valid Eucharist, I wasn’t referring to them in that sentence.

Just wondering. Since the entire conversation was about the SSPX, I just naturally assumed that you were in fact referring to them. Who were you referring to that doesn’t have a valid Mass may I ask?

 

[Mike30]

The statement was made by Cardinal Hoyos, repeated by Cardinal Levada and implied in SP by Pope Benedict.

Here is an interesting turn of events. When UE was issued to clarify SP, the Pope laid down a rule. The only people who can approach a bishop to ask for the EF mass are those who ARE NOT part of a group that is not in full communion. Everyone, including the leadership of the SSPX, understood that he was referring to the laity that SUBSCRIBES to the SSPX way of thinking.

Let’s try to understand why those Catholics forfeit their right to approach a bishop to ask for an EF mass. The answer is in the first statement. It is one thing to attend the mass at the SSPX chapel because you need the EF for your spiritual journey and it is another to SUBSCRIBE to the SSPX worldview. Those who subscribe to the SSPX world view have placed themselves in the same situation as the SSPX priests. To use the analogy used before, they’re at the door with the door open. They are neither in nor out. Until they define their position, they cannot make requests from the bishops. Either submit to the local bishop or they take the position of the SSPX that says that the local bishop can be bypassed and at times avoided.

There is the real issue. As time passes and the rhetoric of the SSPX clergy becomes more inflammatory, I’m truly afraid that many who simply want their EF mass at some point or another are going to be contaminated by the rhetoric and they’re going to start to believe it and repeat it. When that happens, they will have crossed the line.

I do agree that the Vatican has remained silent on this issue far too long. It’s time that it issue a statement about the laity and put the SSPX priests on hold for a moment. I don’t work at the Vatican so I can’t tell them what to do. As St.Francis said, “we reform the world in which we live and let God send someone to reform the rest.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Then a group who has attended SSPX Masses for several years would not be able to approach the Bishop and ask for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass? Why not? That would seem on the face of it to permanently cut off an entire group of people from ever being able to have a Church approved Extraordinary Form of the Mass. What if they had subscribed tothe SSPX view for years but due to the current Popes more lenient stance on the Extraordinary Form have revised their opinion and feel that the Church as a whole is starting a return to orthodoxy and wish to return. That I would think is a distinct posssibilty in at least some cases. What would they have to do in order to get one?

 

[Boulder257]

The law concerning confession and absolution does not contradict the prime directive, which is the salvation of souls.

I thought the prime directive was, “Nothing within these Articles Of Federation shall authorize the United Federation of Planets to intervene in matters which are essentially the domestic jurisdiction of any planetary social system, or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under these Articles Of Federation.”

I always get confused between the CCC and the Articles of the Federation.

 

[Boulder257]

Then a group who has attended SSPX Masses for several years would not be able to approach the Bishop and ask for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass? Why not? That would seem on the face of it to permanently cut off an entire group of people from ever being able to have a Church approved Extraordinary Form of the Mass. What if they had subscribed tothe SSPX view for years but due to the current Popes more lenient stance on the Extraordinary Form have revised their opinion and feel that the Church as a whole is starting a return to orthodoxy and wish to return. That I would think is a distinct posssibilty in at least some cases. What would they have to do in order to get one?

That is now what he said. Here is what he said, “Everyone, including the leadership of the SSPX, understood that he was referring to the laity that SUBSCRIBES to the SSPX way of thinking.”

Just because you are attending an SSPX Mass does not mean that you subscribe to the SSPX way of thinking or support the SSPX goals. However, as Br. JR also mentioned, one runs the risk of being persuaded by what they preach.