SSPX Update - Redux

[JReducation]

Very interesting, thank you. I knew they had some concerns with the Rosary, but I had never heard them articulated.

By using the “tradition” argument, as you described their position regarding the Rosary, I suppose we should all still be praying the Psalms in numerical order rather, than splitting them up into various hours based upon day of the week, etc. like the early Church did. Yet, they seem quite happy with the Divine Office the way it was 50 years ago. It would be fair to ask, in my opinion, why those changes were OK, but the Pope could not get away with adding new mysteries to the Rosary.

The truth is that the numbering of the Psalms is accidental. They were grouped by the Rabbis according to themes. The numbers came later. The numbering of verses even later. We don’t have numbers for the verses in the Jewish Psalter. That’s a Catholic practice that was born in the late Middle Ages, long after Dominic and Francis reformed the Church of the time.

We can’t even say in what order the Psalms should be prayed. The thematic grouping is what is important, not the ordinal assignation. If Jews, Muslims and Christians united and decided tomorrow to move the clusters of psalms around, it would make little difference. Psalm 150 may become Psalm 15, I don’t know.

You’re right. These things have been changed according to need and according to reason over the centuries. However, the Truths remain the same. So too, the mysteries of the Rosary remain truths. Do these have to be the only mysteries? No. Ask the Franciscans. We have a different Rosary. It has 70 Aves for the 70 years of Our Lady. According to Franciscan tradition, that’s how old she was when she left earth. Who knows and is it that important?

Well to be fair, the Orthodox themselves mistrust the Papacy. The non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians… well they think such a thing as a Bishop does not even exist. Yet, we are more friendly with them and willing to compromise much for the sake of unity, yes?

The SSPX is Catholic, not Orthodox or Protestant. Many Protestant communities do have bishops.

We’re more friendly with them, because they are not in rebellion with us. We have no jurisdiction over them. The conflict was between our ancestors. I say our, because they were all originally Catholics. Some remained in communion with Rome and others parted company. The conflict is not between the Orthodox, Protestants and Catholics today.

Though in fairness, I have to say that the laity in all three groups is problematic. If they all kept their mouths shut, maybe, just maybe, the leadership of the three groups could make something positive happen. Buy it’s very hard when they have to stop their dialogue to discipline their people and to keep their people from making silly comments about other Christians. Of the three, I think that the Catholics are probably the better behaved. I didn’t say well behaved, just better.

The SSPX claims to be Catholic. As long as it uses the name Catholic and claims to be part of the Latin Church, then it has to submit to the authority of the Latin Church. This is not the case with the Orthodox, the Eastern Catholics, Protestants, Jews or Muslims. None of them are Latin Catholics. Notice, even Eastern Catholics are not under the same code of law as is the SSPX.

Could one argue that there is a double standard at work? Why can’t we recognize the immense common ground we share with the SSPX and the fact that they have preserved some great traditions that we (at least the Catholic Church of the Western globe) has forgotten?

No one has denied the good that they have. I have never heard that come from Rome. Maybe people around here have denied this, but not the official voice of the Church. What has been challenged is the doctrinal errors of the SSPX, as you saw in the letter written by Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre. That letter is a masterpiece of jurisprudence and theology.

 

[JReducation]

I’d forgotten that, what you say is true.

This caught my interest, as a blogger remarked that the Divine Mercy feast of 15 April was given as a deadline for a response from the SSPX to Rome in 2012

"According to pius.info the German FSSPX district website, the “Kanzelverkündiging” below was read in all churches and chapels of the district. To one observer who wrote to me, “it looks like the are preparing the FSSPX-faithfull for a positive response on the latest step in the dialogue with the Vatican, i.e. viewing a positive response as something which is good for (the orthodox forces in) the whole Church (and it is not about the Society).”

As Fr. Schmidberger (District Superior of the SSPX in Germany) puts it, it looks like the 15 April deadline seems to be official (i.e. included in the letter of Cardinal Levada itself and is felt by the FSSPX as an ultimatum/final deadline).

From the German of the “Kanzelverkündiging:Cancel Preaching: Conversations with Rome
Sunday, 25 March 2012
Cancel preaching to all churches and chapels of the German District of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X.

Dear faithful,
On 16 March in Rome Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation, gave the Superior General of our Fraternity, Bishop Fellay a letter with statements in which we are asked ultimately to react more positively to the doctrinal preamble of September the 14th then we had done so far.
As a final deadline for a response is given the 15th of April 2012. Surely you have heard this already wholly or partialy from the media. We are have thus arrived at a crucial point.

Even if the letter strikes an unpleasant sound, there are legitimate hopes for a satisfactory solution. If this solution would be reached it would considerably strengthen all the orthodox forces in the church. If not it would weaken and discourage these forces. So it is not primarily about our brotherhood, but for the good of the Church.

Therefore we ask for the eager, insistent and imploring prayer of all our faithful and all Catholics, that God through the redemptive suffering of His only begotten Son, will lead His Church through this crisis and give her in the Holy Resurrection of Jesus life new strength and new prosperity.
Stuttgart, 22 March 2012
Father Franz Schmidberger, District Superior
wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/sspx-preparing-for-a-positive-response-to-the-holy-sees-last-letter/

This is one of the points that Archbishop DiNoia is demanding of them. They must stop this constant communication with the laity and the media. The issues of the Society are pertinent to those who are actual members of the Society. When they write these letters, they suck the laity into their battle with Rome.

It’s almost rallying the troop around them. No other religious institute has ever done this. Many Jesuit provinces were suppressed at one time, through the fault of the Franciscans, not the Jesuits. The Jesuits didn’t rally the laity around them to get the Franciscans to back down and to prove their point.

The Dominicans and Franciscans were kicked out of the Diocese of Paris by the secular archbishop. Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure went to Rome to fight their cause. They never shared the problem with the laity. Most laymen don’t even know that this ever happened.

Religious sisters who did not wear a veil were driven out of the Diocese of Ponce. They never went to the laity with their problem. They went to Pope Paul VI.

The Legion of Christ has been placed under the governance of an apostolic administrator. The have a lay association, Regnum Christi. The members of Regnum Christi know about the apostolic administrator. They do not know what he tells the priests of the Legion about their future. The priests do not share it with them. When it’s decided, they’ll find out.

My point is the same as that of Archbishop DiNoia. These institutes and organizations need to stop pulling the laity into its issues with the Vatican. The LCWR has done the same thing as the SSPX. That’s wrong. It only hurts the laity. It pits one family member against another. That is not the Gospel.

 

[curlycool89]

The SSPX claims to be Catholic. As long as it uses the name Catholic and claims to be part of the Latin Church, then it has to submit to the authority of the Latin Church. This is not the case with the Orthodox, the Eastern Catholics, Protestants, Jews or Muslims. None of them are Latin Catholics. Notice, even Eastern Catholics are not under the same code of law as is the SSPX.

I think we can go back to a Biblical idea for this: To whom much is given, much is expected.

The SSPX already says that they are Catholic, that they are in the Catholic tent. So, we expect them to be fully able and willing to follow all the Catholic “rules” as decided by the legitimate authority (ie, the Pope).

Non-Catholics on the other hand are outside the tent. They are in many ways ignorant to what the fullness of the Truth is. Unlike what Jack Chick thinks, wee can’t expect atheists (for example) to be able to instantly understand the concept of Jesus as our Saviour and Lord as soon as we explain it, and so we have to be patient in evangelization and build relations.

The SSPX don’t have such an excuse and we expect that they understand such things and as a society that professes to be faithful to the Pope that there is no need to use kid-gloves. They know where the fullness of the truth is. Traditionalists sometimes complain about the lack of discipline in our society, but then complain that they should be exempt from any sort as if actions don’t have consequences.

 

[JReducation]

If there is anyone here under 21, please forgive me.

Does everyone here remember those arguments with Mom and Dad when we would say to our parents, “But Johnny’s parents let him stay up late.” Mom would answer, “You’re not Johnny and I’m not his mother.”

That’s what’s happening here when we compare the SSPX with Eastern Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims and Protestants.

The SSPX is none of those and the Church is not their mother. She is mother to the SSPX.

 

[Eufrosnia]

If there is anyone here under 21, please forgive me.

Does everyone here remember those arguments with Mom and Dad when we would say to our parents, “But Johnny’s parents let him stay up late.” Mom would answer, “You’re not Johnny and I’m not his mother.”

That’s what’s happening here when we compare the SSPX with Eastern Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims and Protestants.

The SSPX is none of those and the Church is not their mother. She is mother to the SSPX.

I thought the church was the mother of all baptized Christians…

 

[Eufrosnia]

Though in fairness, I have to say that the laity in all three groups is problematic. If they all kept their mouths shut, maybe, just maybe, the leadership of the three groups could make something positive happen. Buy it’s very hard when they have to stop their dialogue to discipline their people and to keep their people from making silly comments about other Christians. Of the three, I think that the Catholics are probably the better behaved. I didn’t say well behaved, just better.

The SSPX claims to be Catholic. As long as it uses the name Catholic and claims to be part of the Latin Church, then it has to submit to the authority of the Latin Church. This is not the case with the Orthodox, the Eastern Catholics, Protestants, Jews or Muslims. None of them are Latin Catholics. Notice, even Eastern Catholics are not under the same code of law as is the SSPX.

Well I do not know why you refer to laity with respect to Protestants. Aren’t all of them laity? I think perhaps what many forget is that talking to Protestant Pastor John is not the same as talking to Patriarch John. If Patriarch John is convinced, he can ask his parish to follow and it will be binding. But if Pastor John is convinced, the rest of his group will just band together and form their own denomination.

This is not relevant but I thought it worth mentioning.

Anyway, the Orthodox technically call themselves the one true Church. I honestly fail to see how different SSPX are from Orthodox in this sense at times. They are “oh so close” in terms of entering back in to communion but “oh so far” when it comes to accepting councils (not just Vatican II) and some other doctrines like… infallibility.

No one has denied the good that they have. I have never heard that come from Rome. Maybe people around here have denied this, but not the official voice of the Church. What has been challenged is the doctrinal errors of the SSPX, as you saw in the letter written by Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre. That letter is a masterpiece of jurisprudence and theology.

Oh ok. As long as we agree that they have good things in their communities, I think its a good step.

 

[JReducation]

I thought the church was the mother of all baptized Christians…

The Church is mother. But that does not mean that every baptized Christian is part of the Catholic Church.

Well I do not know why you refer to laity with respect to Protestants. Aren’t all of them laity?/ quote]

No, their ministers are properly clergy. They are not priests. There is a difference between clergy and priest. A priest is a member of the clergy, not all clergymen are priests.

Anyway, the Orthodox technically call themselves the one true Church. I honestly fail to see how different SSPX are from Orthodox in this sense at times. They are “oh so close” in terms of entering back in to communion but “oh so far” when it comes to accepting councils (not just Vatican II) and some other doctrines like… infallibility.

 

[Lormar]

It’s not only that it’s an emotional thing for me…it is also that there are very real issues at stake and perhaps only people who have “been there, and done that” and have come out of it relatively unscathed, that are able to comprehend at more than an intellectual level, the realities of adhering and buying in to such an organization.

You are so right, Dee, and I do wish more people understood and acknowledged the reality of this. Unless they’ve walked a mile in our shoes…

 

[Lormar]

I recall from the SSPX communique to Rome thread a poster saying that Bishop Fellay had forbidden ‘the faithful’ to go on CAF. I can quite believe that. Does anyone else know of this prohibition?

That is not true at all. It is true that they are discouraging their faithful from viewing fora, but CAF is not one of them. Believe me.

 

[Lormar]

I had never heard that. However, I can say that CAF was widely ridiculed in the online “SSPX” crowd. So much so that it would be a badge of honour to have never clicked over to CAF. It took me about 7 years to even look in, and when I did, I started reading BrotherJR. What struck me first after being used to the “trad” forums elsewhere was the incredible and true charity of his posting.

Then, secondly, there was and is the education.

Me too! And I used to (forgive me, Brother Jay, please) just hate reading anything Brother JR posted, so I didn’t. I had already been warned against him and his posts.

Then one day I read one of Brother’s posts. And what he wrote not only made a lot of sense but it was kind, gentle and truly edifying. So I read more. Then I started saving everything onto my desktop that he wrote that I knew would be helpful to reread not once but many times.

The rest is history!

 

[LINVS]

Doesn’t it seem like SSPX is becoming more militantly anti-Rome?

A few months ago it seemed like all the issues had been resolved. Now SSPX and Bp Fellay are making more statements that are critical of Rome. Bp Fellay has seems to have changed his diplomatic attitude and joined those in the Society who have no desire to normalize with Rome.

What are the militant’s goal? Discredit Rome and claim to be the “true Catholic Church?” There’s no chance Rome will change for SSPX. Maybe hope some future Pope will grant them status of being in full communion while SSPX doesn’t change their stance at al?

 

[JReducation]

Me too! And I used to (forgive me, Brother Jay, please) just hate reading anything Brother JR posted, so I didn’t. ** I had already been warned against him and his posts.
**

WOW!! I didn’t know that I was famous, much less dangerous. You’re always the last to know. Oh well.

Doesn’t it seem like SSPX is becoming more militantly anti-Rome?

A few months ago it seemed like all the issues had been resolved. Now SSPX and Bp Fellay are making more statements that are critical of Rome. Bp Fellay has seems to have changed his diplomatic attitude and joined those in the Society who have no desire to normalize with Rome.

We must tread gently, kindly and with a lot of patience here. At the same time, with a no nonsense approach.

Do some of you remember that in several of my previous posts I had spoken quite loudly that I felt that it was a mistake for Bishop Fellay to take this decision to the general chapter?

I explained that once a major superior puts a decision in the hands of the general chapter, he is bound to obey the conclusions and the mandates of the chapter. It is the superior’s job to enforce what the chapter decides.

Therefore, most superiors who wan to make something happen make a unilateral decision, rather than put it put for discussion and vote. There are some things that the law of your community demands that you put up for a vote. This is not one of them, because it’s not everyday that a community gets a Preamble.

I say let’s give the good bishop the benefit of the doubt. Let’s assume that he wanted this reconciliation and that he believed that his brothers would be behind him, so he took it to the general chapter. Then it turned out that they were behind him with conditions. Once the vote was cast, the superior general must obey and speak the mind of the delegates to the chapter.

This is where things become challenging. The delegates to the chapter do not have to vote according to the mind of their constituency. Their not their to represent a specific region or group within a community. The represent themselves. Whatever comes out of the chapter binds all of the members of an institute, including the major superior, even if it’s only the with of those at the chapter. Those at the chapter are less than 5% of the community. Every regional superior goes ex oficio. Everyone on the general council goes ex oficio. Formation directors go ex-oficio. Supeirors of houses go ex-oficio. Then the constitutions allow the brothers to select a fixed number of men from the whole. These men attend the chapter and vote.

None of these people are bound to vote according to the mind and wishes of the community. They vote according to their conscience. The community agrees to obey the outcome.

As far as I can tell, Bishop Fellay was rather mellow prior to the chapter. After the chapter he became more militant. For all we know, his voice is the voice of the chapter. If that’s the case, we cannot ask him to change his rhetoric, because he can’t. He’s not allowed to have a mind of his own. As superior general, his mind is formed for him by the chapter. His personal insight and beliefs are allowed only on those matters that have not been addressed by the chapter or by the constitution. In the case of the Society, since they are not an order, the founder has no voice. They can choose to give him one, but that’s not a law.

Let’s go easy on the good bishop and take whatever he says as the voice of the chapter, until we hear differently. If it is truly the voice of the chapter, I must take my hat off to him, if I wore one, for his obedience. As a superior general myself, I know how difficult it is to stop yourself from saying what you think or believe in order to execute the mandate of the chapter, when it was something that you voted against.

It’s as if the general chapter said that all the Franciscans of Life must wear orange socks. Personally, I hate orange… But I have to enforce the orange socks and do so convincingly. That requires a great deal of obedience and humility, not to mention self-control. You keep biting your lip.

 

[Lormar]

Double post deleted

 

[Lormar]

I explained that once a major superior puts a decision in the hands of the general chapter, he is bound to obey the conclusions and the mandates of the chapter. It is the superior’s job to enforce what the chapter decides.

Can a Superior General try to influence them or change their mind if he thinks they are going in the wrong direction or are about to cast a positive vote on something that isn’t the prudent way to go?

 

[JReducation]

Can a Superior General try to influence them or change their mind if he thinks they are going in the wrong direction or are about to cast a positive vote on something that isn’t the prudent way to go?

During the chapter, the general superior has no more authority than any other delegate. There is a president elected to lead the chapter. That president cannot be the general superior to prevent him from tying to influence the delegates.

He gets his turn to speak as do all of the delegates. Usually, a team will put together the agenda, prior to the chapter. Everyone can contribute to the agenda. That’s the superior general’s opportunity to put on the agenda what he would like to see discussed.

Once the chapter begins, the president leads the chapter through the agenda. To make a chapter efficient, there are time constraints. You can only discuss a point for so long. At the end of that allotted time, someone must make a motion to vote. The motion must be seconded and a vote is taken. If there is no motion to vote, the discussion is dead in the water and the chapter moves on to the next point on the agenda. The chapter must be concluded on a specific day by a specific time. I cannot go on until every point is discussed. They have to work very quickly.

For this reason, the agenda is distributed in advance. You go in knowing what you want to say on each point. You have a time limit. If you’re the superior general and you feel that the community is making a mistake, you must use that time frame to make your point.

On the other hand, no one can command another person to sin. A chapter cannot decide in favor of something that is a sin. If it does the superior general is not bound to enforce it and one is bound to obey.

 

[jeannetherese]

Sorry, I can’t add anything to the debate. Since there seems to be a lull in the proceedings - as in not much news about the SSPX, I just wondered if there are many of us (like me and pnewton) that just lurk here because of Br Jay’s involvement? The guy’s immense and has given me lots of info for use in dinner table discussions as well as making me look more informed than I am outside Mass (sort of barrack room canon lawyer lol)

I’ve been lurking since the thread began. I choose not to post, because I feel that I have little to add, but like so many, I pray for the priests and laity associated with the SSPX.
I look forward to the day when we are fully reconciled to each other in the Love of Our Lord. May this thread be a most helpful part of that process. Amen.

 

[JReducation]

I’ve been lurking since the thread began. I choose not to post, because I feel that I have little to add, but like so many, I pray for the priests and laity associated with the SSPX.
I look forward to the day when we are fully reconciled to each other in the Love of Our Lord. May this thread be a most helpful part of that process. Amen.

We have to pray that the Society accepts the hand that Rome is extending. Even though there are many things to be fixed in the Church, the fact is that the Society will be unable to help with any of it from its position.

If you have no canonical place, then you have no right to speak and whatever you may have to say, will not be taken into account, even if it’s the best thing since sliced bread.

I also pray that the Society’s internal issues do not cause it to implode. That would hurt so many people. Unfortunately, their priests made the big mistake of involving people who are not SSPX priests and brothers in their affairs: laity, other religious, third orders and independent priests and chapels. When you do this, there is a grave danger of hurting many people if you fall apart. We have to pray for these people that no matter what happens, they will not be hurt or that the hurt will be minimal and tolerable.

 

[PaulinVA]

I also pray that the Society’s internal issues do not cause it to implode. That would hurt so many people. Unfortunately, their priests made the big mistake of involving people who are not SSPX priests and brothers in their affairs: laity, other religious, third orders and independent priests and chapels. When you do this, there is a grave danger of hurting many people if you fall apart. We have to pray for these people that no matter what happens, they will not be hurt or that the hurt will be minimal and tolerable.

I think in some ways the Vatican’s long-running hope for reconciliation has contributed to this. As people have pointed out in previous threads, the Vatican will entertain specific questions about SSPX confessions and whether specific issues can be resolved in their confessionals such as absolution for abortion, instead of saying, “Whoa, slow down, don’t* ever* go to confession to an SSPX priest. They don’t have faculties”.

Every year, the SSPX ordains priests who are immediately suspended, and the Vatican is silent most years. The Vatican is kind of like the parent that believes by “letting it go” they will have a positive outcome sometime in the future.

 

[JReducation]

I think in some ways the Vatican’s long-running hope for reconciliation has contributed to this. As people have pointed out in previous threads, the Vatican will entertain specific questions about SSPX confessions and whether specific issues can be resolved in their confessionals such as absolution for abortion, instead of saying, “Whoa, slow down, don’t* ever* go to confession to an SSPX priest. They don’t have faculties”.

Every year, the SSPX ordains priests who are immediately suspended, and the Vatican is silent most years. The Vatican is kind of like the parent that believes by “letting it go” they will have a positive outcome sometime in the future.

I hope that I don’t get into trouble for saying this. I don’t know if I’m allowed to have this thought or not, but here goes.

I don’t think that the Vatican is playing the permissive mother. I think that the Vatican may have fallen into another equally frustrating role, that of the anxious mother.

When you have a problem child in a family, you want him to straighten up. Those who are watching, such as the siblings, can get very frustrated when the parent is afraid to put his foot down. The observing sibling wants this nonsense to end so that life can get back to some semblance of normal. However, the anxious parent, who also wants to get back to normal, is afraid of taken a hard position, because the problem child may run away from home and that who knows what will become of him. This parent just keeps hoping and praying that things will change. He continues to offer olive branches to the problem child, hoping that the child will eventually accept one. This does not always work. However, we can’t deny that it can work.

The Vatican’s silence on many things that the SSPX does and says may have a lot to do with anxiety over the welfare of the SSPX. I have not asked for permission to think this. Please take it for what it is.

I will say this, as I said in some other post, there is a great deal that happens behind the scenes between Church authorities and individuals and groups that is never made public by the Church, because the world does not have a need to know. A perfect example has been the declarations made by Bishop Fellay.

No one knew what the Vatican has demanded of the SSPX for full recognition. Bishop Fellay made it public. The bishop said four things:

1. Accept all of Vatican II as error free.
2. Accept the Ordinary Form as valid and licit
3. Accept that only the pope can decide what is and is not part of tradition.
4. Accept that the SSPX has no right or permission to correct others or criticize anyone

If this were not the case, Father Lombardi or someone from the CDF would have said so.

Just as this was sent to Bishop Fellay without revealing it to the public, we have no idea what else may have been sent to the Bishop or to anyone else out there who is in trouble. Because we have internet, we have access to a lot of information, but not the whole of it. This gets frustrating for those who are following these developments.

This position I do have permission to think. :yup:

 

[PaulinVA]

I
I don’t think that the Vatican is playing the permissive mother. I think that the Vatican may have fallen into another equally frustrating role, that of the anxious mother.

When you have a problem child in a family, you want him to straighten up. Those who are watching, such as the siblings, can get very frustrated when the parent is afraid to put his foot down. The observing sibling wants this nonsense to end so that life can get back to some semblance of normal. However, the anxious parent, who also wants to get back to normal, is afraid of taken a hard position, because the problem child may run away from home and that who knows what will become of him. This parent just keeps hoping and praying that things will change. He continues to offer olive branches to the problem child, hoping that the child will eventually accept one. This does not always work. However, we can’t deny that it can work.

The Vatican’s silence on many things that the SSPX does and says may have a lot to do with anxiety over the welfare of the SSPX.

I agree. When a parent finds themselves in this position, they are certainly doing what they are doing actively, not passively. And, it’s not just the 500 or so Priests that are at stake - there are thousands of lay people involved as well. The Church wants them all to be reconciled, although the talks are only with the ordained. Do it wrongly, and you may bring hundreds of priests back into the fold, but you lose thousands of lay people who refuse to return.

And., the other part of this is that there has to be a true reconciliation, not just one on paper where the SSPX continues to teach error.