SSPX Update - Redux

[numealinesimpet]

Wow. Just wow.

You started with a “never rank-and-file” then ended with the “overwhelmingly Jewish” So which one is it?

My apologies for giving the impression that I thought Our Lord was addressing these comments only to His hearers at the time. That wasn’t what I meant.

Are we talking about Jews in general, or just persons in authority who are hypocritical who happen to be Jews.

The latter. But Our Lord reminded them - and us - that they bore a specific responsibility as the leaders of the people.

Wasn’t Jesus a Jew?

Christ is the Head of the Church, and they are one. Because there are Catholics from both sides of the spectrum who are against the Church, they too are against Christ. He who is not with Him is against Him, and he who does not gather with Him, scatters.

Agreed. But when Bp Fellay pointed out that this saying of Christ applied to “Jews, Masons and Modernists” he was denounced for “Anti-Semitism”. That is unfair, and it is the point I wished to make.

 

[numealinesimpet]

These sayings are not directed at Judaism.These words apply to all people of all time. It is the living Word of God…it applies to you and I right now. The bible is not just a history book.

Agreed. See my response to choliks.

 

[choliks]

My apologies for giving the impression that I thought Our Lord was addressing these comments only to His hearers at the time. That wasn’t what I meant. The latter. But Our Lord reminded them - and us - that they bore a specific responsibility as the leaders of the people. Agreed. But when Bp Fellay pointed out that this saying of Christ applied to “Jews, Masons and Modernists” he was denounced for “Anti-Semitism”. That is unfair, and it is the point I wished to make.

Masons and Modernists… maybe I can understand. But why include Jews?

I would like reiterate what I’ve posted earlier in another thread: it would be wise to rely on the Church, than on our own opinions.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Masons and Modernists… maybe I can understand. But why include Jews?

I did read something on this from an SSPX website. In the interests of debate, I will try to dig it up again. But with your patience, I’ll need to leave it till tomorrow - it’s 2.30am here.
With respect (‘Is mise le meas’ in Irish)

 

[choliks]

Christ is the Head of the Church, and they are one. Because there are Catholics from both sides of the spectrum who are against the Church, they too are against Christ. He who si not with Him is against Him, and he who does not gather with Him, scatters.

As I was thinking further in what I posted, I realized that it’s not enough to just let this be and say, “que sera sera!” Then I saw the value of Brother JR’s presence and work on this fora and beyond. He wouldn’t let those Catholics who are almost out of bounds to fall on the wayside, and just be scattered. Even in his frail state, he would summon all his strength to educate us. To invite us back in and be with Christ and His Church; to be in communion with St. Peter’s and the Apostles’ successors. He’s doing his father’s work. He’s also inviting us to do the same.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I did read something on this from an SSPX website. In the interests of debate, I will try to dig it up again. But with your patience, I’ll need to leave it till tomorrow - it’s 2.30am here.
With respect (‘Is mise le meas’ in Irish)

Ah sure here’s the link:
sspx.org/superior_generals_news/controversy_around_bishop_fellays_conference_1-18-2013.htm
Here are two extracts, otherwise unedited:

Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, gave a conference in Ontario, Canada, on December 28, 2012, during which he stated that among the opponents of the SSPX’s canonical regularization were forces outside the Church, known for their opposition to Catholic doctrine. He specifically named “the Jews, the Masons, and the Modernists.”
The expression employed by the bishop, “enemies of the Church,” was denounced by the media and by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre. On January 5, 2013, the US district of the SSPX published a press release stating,
The word “enemies” used here by Bishop Fellay is of course a religious concept and refers to any group or religious sect which opposes the mission of the Catholic Church and her efforts to fulfill it: the salvation of souls. This religious context is based upon the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ as recorded in the Holy Gospels: “He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.” (Matthew 12:30). By referring to the Jews, Bishop Fellay’s comment was aimed at the leaders of Jewish organizations, and not the Jewish people, as is being implied by journalists.
On this topic, it is not out of place to point out that two influential Jews spoke out publicly on Rome’s relations with the SSPX.
…
On November 10, 2011, Rabbi David Rosen, the head of interreligious dialogue for the American Jewish Committee, declared that an eventual return of the SSPX to the Catholic Church must not be allowed to compromise the conciliar document Nostra Aetate (October 28, 1965) which acts as a basis for interreligious dialogue. “We have already expressed our concerns,” he revealed after an audience granted by the Pope to the Council of Religious Leaders in Israel.
On this occasion David Rosen made it known that Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, had guaranteed that the Vatican II text on the Church’s relations with non-Christian religions was not under discussion.

num: In other words, this was not a critical issue between the SSPX and the Commission from the Vatican.

“This does not mean that an explicit recognition of Nostra Aetate is part of the doctrinal preamble that the Holy See wishes the SSPX to sign,” Rabbi Rosen explained, although the SSPX would have to accept it in practice, since according to him “this acceptance is required for any reconciliation.”

As a contribution to this debate, here is Bp Fellay’s commentary, from November 2012:
sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/bishop_fellay_econe_sermon_11-9-2012.htm

 

[numealinesimpet]

As I was thinking further in what I posted, I realized that it’s not enough to just let this be and say, “que sera sera!” Then I saw the value of Brother JR’s presence and work on this fora and beyond. He wouldn’t let those Catholics who are almost out of bounds to fall on the wayside, and just be scattered. Even in his frail state, he would summon all his strength to educate us. To invite us back in and be with Christ and His Church; to be in communion with St. Peter’s and the Apostles’ successors. He’s doing his father’s work. He’s also inviting us to do the same.

The tragedy is that the flock are being scattered far and wide.

I stand on street corners, under no other label than Catholic, handing out Miraculous Medals with leaflets, outlining the most very basic dogmas of the Faith. The issue of the Traditional Rite is not mentioned. The text of the main leaflet is to be found at
sites.google.com/site/catholictopics
Let nobody deceive themselves about Ireland: the vast majority of the younger generation - and their parents - are in deep ignorance of the simplest truths of the Faith.

I, and others, are doing this because it is not being done in the schools, including those designated as Catholic schools. Meanwhile, the SSPX (among others) are applying a specific remedy to the problem.

I hope that your own children are well informed. I ardently hope that your parish schools have actually taught these children the Faith. If not, why not? Was such a situation not unthinkable in 1950? Again, why?

Those wishing to learn what is our diocesan bishop’s response to the contemporary situation are invited to look up
Church will not reject people, says bishop
irishexaminer.com/ireland…op-218553.html
Friday, January 04, 2013
I wrote the following to the Papal Nuncio to Ireland, cc. Bp Buckley. I give only the first two lines of my letter.
Your Grace & Bp Buckley,
I write to you to express my dismay at the following report (please see below) in the Irish Examiner for 4 January 2013.
Were these words accurately reported?
If not, I sincerely hope that you will take legal action.

 

[pnewton]

The tragedy is that the flock are being scattered far and wide.

This is not happening in the States. Almost all Catholics are still in union with the Holy Father.

 

[choliks]

The tragedy is that the flock are being scattered far and wide.

Actually, it’s mostly those who think they are above the Church.

 

[TimothyH]

Dominic was very obedient. He is a bright light to all of us. Whether he knew it or not, his obedience was the best sermon that he ever preached. When he came upon a town where the clergy was either too ignorant or too corrupt to preach the Gospel, Dominic would go to the local priest and ask for permission to preach in his territory. They didn’t call them pastors back them. That’s a Protestant term that we adopted. That’s a story for another day.

The point is that despite his desire to preach to these poor souls who were being deprived of the Gospel by either ignorance or corruption, obedience always trumped converting. In a rather interesting way, he often managed to convert those priests who were corrupt. They were often astonished at his great kindness when they told him to go away. Some were so ashamed that they would call him back. Others would later call on the Friar Preachers to come to preach to their people, inspired by the Master, Dominic.

Like Francis, Dominic understood Christ much better than we do. We tend to be very literal in our reading of the scriptures. Francis and Dominic were intelligent enough to understand what Jesus said and did within the context of the entire bible from Genesis to Revelation. They did not take passages, events, or teachings in isolation.

Also, they always referred back to the tradition of the Church and then would look to the bishops and popes to tell them if they had it right. They knew that the office of teaching had been given to the Apostles who handed it down to their successors. Neither of them was a successor of the Apostles. Only bishops are successors of the Apostles. Like the early Christians, they referred to the bishops for confirmation of what they understood from scripture and tradition.

I often fear that we have lost this respect and this devotion to the bishops and the popes. We cannot justify ourselves by saying how badly the bishops have behaved or how badly they have let us down. This has been part of the tradition of the Church since the time of the Apostles. Not all bishops were saints. In fact, most were very worldly men. There are many reasons for that, which are not important right now.

The point is that Francis and Dominic turned the Church of the Middle Ages right side up again working with some very difficult bishops. They were often abused by many bishops. They saw the laity abused my many bishops. However, they taught the laity of their time to look past the abuse and to see the Apostle and submit to him in all things but sin.

There is wonderful example that involves Bonaventure and Aquinas. As many people know, these two wee working on the Summa at the University of Paris. A conflict broke out. The local diocesan priests in the Diocese of Paris did not want the friars there. They leveled all kinds of accusations against them, including calling them heretics. The bishop of Parish asked them to leave. Please keep in mind that this was before the Council of Trent. Today this would never be allowed. No bishop can ask a religious order to leave his diocese. In those days they could do so.

The beauty of it is that the Dominican and Franciscan superiors told their men to thank the bishop for his kindness to them and to thank him for the brief period that he had allowed them to stay and then pick up and leave. They left, even though the accusations against them were false and unjust.

Bonaventure and Aquinas went to Rome. They took their case up with the pope. The friars were exonerated and allowed to return to Parish. Bonaventure himself did not return, but went to Assisi to become superior general. But the other Franciscans did return, as did Aquinas and the Dominicans. Aquinas finished the Summa on his own.

The example here is how these men were willing to sacrifice everything they had built up out of obedience, even if it was to an unfriendly bishop. They had built up the philosophy and theology faculty at the University of Parish. Had it not been for the Franciscan and Dominican scholars, we would not have a University of Paris today.

Reminiscent of some of what happened to and the reaction of St. Louis de Montfort, if I am not mistaken. He was often asked to leave by the local bishop and he did so obediently.

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

Good Friar,

You mention the general chapter and its decisions in relation to the SSPX… but can Rome treat them as having held one, when by the law itself, both old and new, a suspended cleric is apparently supposed to be denied a vote in all Catholic associations?

This is a very interesting question and I don’t have the answer at the tip of my fingers, because the SSPX is in a rather odd situation.

Normally, if you’re a suspended cleric you cannot vote in any Catholic association.

However, there is one exception to this rule. If you are a suspended cleric who is a member of a religious order, you cannot be denied the right to vote in matter that pertain to the order. You’re not at the chapter as a priest. In other words, a chapter is not a priestly function. It is a religious function or a function of religious life. Unless you have been suspended from your religious community, you retain your rights as a full member of that community.

Canon Law says that Societies of Apostolic Life should follow the same rules as consecrated religious follow regarding government.

Here is where I can’t really answer your question. The SSPX has all of the external appearances of a society of apostolic life, but has never been recognized as such by the Holy See. I’m not really sure what the Holy See accepts or does not accept from its general chapter.

From what I have read in the news, the Holy See’s silence regarding the pronouncements of the general chapter can indicate that it refuses to acknowledge it, given the fact that the Holy See has said that it is still waiting to get an official response from Bishop Fellay. In the meantime, Bishop Fellay keeps quoting the chapter as the official response.

My only contribution here is that if the Vatican recognizes the general chapter, then it should accept this body’s response as official. That’s not what’s happening.

**“The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops denounces all forms of anti-Semitism, and rejects assertions such as those reported to have been made by the superior of the Society of St. Pius X, which is a schismatic group not in communion with the Catholic Church,” **the bishops’ statement said.

catholicregister.org/news/canada/item/15741-canadian-bishops-denounce-anti-semitic-talk-by-sspx-leader

I was afraid of this. This is where the problems begin. While it is true that the Society has never been declared to be in schism, it has been guilty of schismatic acts and schismatic thinking. At some point, they’re going to reach a point of no return in which they will be considered to be in schism, because there is more that they resist and reject than what they accept. In other words, the scales will have been tipped to the other side.

At this point, the scale is still in their favor. A schismatic act here and a schismatic statement there does not a schismatic make. However, if you make this your normal behavior, then you have effectively placed yourself in schism. No one needs to send you a letter or issue a press release.

What is happening here is that the bishops are starting to react directly to the Society, especially in those countries where the Society’s behavior does harm to the Church.

This is very important for all of us to remember. No matter what it is that we feel or what it is that we disagree with, we may never say it, if it’s only going to do harm. I’m paraphrasing, but St. Augustine said that if you can’t say something nice, shut up.

To call someone an enemy of the Church is big. Especially, when the statement was unnecessary and even if the good bishop meant something else, there was no need to insert that into his homily.

To say that the enemies of Christ are the enemies of the Church is an oversimplification of the Scriptures and the mind of the Church. That’s an issue better left for the Sacred Scripture forum. I’d just like to say that it’s not that black and white. The first thing that one has to do is to define “enemy”. Again, that would take us into apologetics.

 

[JReducation]

Regarding the issue with St. Faustina and Mercy Sunday. What I have always seen against Mercy Sunday comes from the SSPX laity, not from the priests. The priests seem to be rather silent on this. They refuse to mention it in their homily, because they focus very rigidly on the EF calendar; but that’s the most that I have seen.

As to her writings, they are not really problematic. I think that in the Traditionalist and Liberal communities there are extremes, which is pretty normal given human beings. Both sides can and do find faults in her writings.

As an expert in Spiritual Theology, I can say with confidence that there is nothing in her writing that is contrary to the faith or contrary to morals. There are isolated sentences in her writings that are very unique to her. Every mystic has certain details, words or sentences unique to them. If we read the Dialogue of St. Catherine of Sienna. We find that there are expressions and sentences that say things that you and I would never say. However, they are not heresies. They are simply proper to her and until we get to heaven, we won’t know what she meant by them. This also happens with some of St. Faustina’s statements.

The Church does not require that a mystic’s writings be perfectly clear. She requires that they not contradict faith and morals.

On the issue of Jesus referring to her as the saint for her congregation, it is a mistake to believe that a) he would never say such a thing, because there is a precedent in history, b) that Jesus would inflate someone’s ego, because there are precedent’s in history and they have not inflated the ego. This is what makes one a saint. c) God can say whatever he wants. If we can believe that God can change bread and wine into his body and blood, what’s so hard about him telling anyone that they’re going to be a saint?

St. Francis told the friars that Jesus had shown him the future. In that future, Christ showed him (Francis) leading a long line of friars into heaven. On another occasion, he reported that Christ had shown him a seat next to his throne, reserved for him (Francis) and Mary on the other side.

Pope Innocent III had two visions exactly the same, but separately. They involved Francis and Dominic. He communicated them to the two Holy Fathers. In the vision, the Church was about to collapse. A friar walked up to the side of it and propped it up. Suddenly, the friar grew into a giant and promised Pope Innocent that he and his brothers would hold the Church up until the return of the Lord. In vision, the friar was Francis and in the next, it was Dominic. He has these visions, the day before he ever met each of these men.

St. Bernadette told her sisters that in her last dialogue with the Blessed Mother, when she was very sick, Our Lady said to her, “I cannot make you happy in this world, but only in the next.” Bernadette interpreted that to mean that Our Lady was guaranteeing heaven.

St. Maximilian Kolbe had a similar vision in which Our Lady promised him that he would earn the crowns of purity and martyrdom. Here is the strange thing. He was going to be canonized as a confessor. He had been beatified as a confessor.

The night before he canonization, Pope John Paul had a dream. When he awoke he ordered that all of the vestments and arrangements for the canonization mass, be changed from white to red. When everyone arrived for the mass, they were stunned to see red.

Pope John Paul was very quiet. He said nothing until he decreed that Blessed Maximilian Kolbe is a saint and the martyr of the 20th century. He fulfilled what Maximilian knew from the time he was 12 years old.

 

[Dee_S]

:thankyou:Br JR, these two recent posts are so comprehensively true that I hesitate to quote any part of them and can only recommend that everyone on this thread read them through very carefully - a lots of gems to be absorbed there.

 

[Dee_S]

Just one comment on this for tonight: It is no longer possible to describe the SSPX as ‘schismatic’, or that they are not in communion with the Holy See… ** They have not been given a formal canonical role within the Church, but that is not the same thing. The SSPX accept that they are not given a formal role in the Church: they claim that they are performing correctly within a Situation of Emergency. Their position is anomalous, but they maintain that the withholding of a formal recognition is due to the current state of the Vatican…**

The SSPX are not in full communion with the Church - that fact cannot be denied, especially as this is what all the ‘talks with Rome’ are all about! There are spiritual and other consequences for not being fully part of the Mystical Body of Christ. Here is an extract from the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi of Pope Pius XII:

1. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.
   vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

"At the same time (1988), the Pope set up the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia dei to help SSPX members and adherents who wished “to remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions” to enter “full ecclesial communion”.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X

As to not being given a “formal role in the Church” - that is due to the SSPX’s continued rebellion and rejection of Papal Authority.
"In his letter of 10 March 2009 concerning his remission of the excommunication of the four bishops of the Society of St Pius X, Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed: "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.""

Bp Fellay’s Comments on the Jews, Masons and Modernists are explicated on their website. It is made particularly clear that there is no targeting of individual Jews or judgment made of their motives. However, insofar as they are not ‘with’ Christ they are ‘against’ Him. In saying this the SSPX are merely repeating the words of Our Lord Himself. This is the sense in which the Church has always used the expression ‘enemies of the Church’. There are certain quotations from Our Lord in the Gospels which would perhaps be denounced by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops…

You are casting unjust and sacrilegious aspersions on Catholic Bishops very lightly - perhaps you don’t realise it yet, but this is a mentality imbibed when in the SSPX and other ‘traditional’ organizations. They constantly, covertly & overtly, criticize and denigrate the Holy Father and his Bishops throughout the world - arrogating to themselves this unholy right by using abuses and novelties in the Church as a justification. Take care, this is dangerous ground.
"In the Catholic Church, a bishop is an ordained minister who holds the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders and is responsible for teaching doctrine,[1] governing Catholics in his jurisdiction,[2] and sanctifying the world[3] and for representing the Church.[4][5]"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_%28Catholic_Church%29

Nevermind their website, there are factual news reports that show that Bishop Fellay said a lot more than this…take a look back on this thread for details.

"In an audio recording posted on YouTube Dec. 30, the head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X called the Jewish people “enemies of the church,” saying Jewish leaders’ support of the Second Vatican Council "shows that Vatican II is their thing, not the church’s."
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300086.htm

 

[JReducation]

I came across this page and I’m not understanding why the superior would feel that it is necessary to make this public statement.

sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1998_November/Meet_the_Sedevacantist_Priests.htm

 

[Dee_S]

I came across this page and I’m not understanding why the superior would feel that it is necessary to make this public statement.

sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1998_November/Meet_the_Sedevacantist_Priests.htm

Looks to me like this ‘article’ is part of their reprints of their SiSiNoNo articles archive. Taking a brief look, it appears to be a scare story on priests who were ordained by them, but who ‘turned-coat’ by swinging (from their point of view) from sedevacantism to finally ending up (horror of horrors) back in the Church.

Suppose if you don’t laugh,…you’ll cry

 

[Dee_S]

Let nobody deceive themselves about Ireland: the vast majority of the younger generation - and their parents - are in deep ignorance of the simplest truths of the Faith.

I hope that your own children are well informed. I ardently hope that the parish schools have actually taught these children the Faith. If not, why not? Was such a situation not unthinkable in 1950? Again, why?

Those wishing to learn what is our diocesan bishop’s response to the contemporary situation are invited to look up
Church will not reject people, says bishop
irishexaminer.com/ireland/church-will-not-reject-people-says-bishop-218553.html
Friday, January 04, 2013

I wrote the following to the Papal Nuncio to Ireland, cc. Bp Buckley. I give only the first two lines of my letter.

Your Grace & Bp Buckley,
I write to you to express my dismay at the following report (please see below) in the Irish Examiner for 4 January 2013.
Were these words accurately reported?

If not, I sincerely hope that you will take legal action.
My comments are prefaced by >MOF:

I can’t see anything wrong with what this bishop said. The Church does not exist for the just, but for sinners (i.e. all of us) that Christ died to redeem…and to me, that is what he is saying in this interview:

“Bishop John Buckley has said the central tenets of Catholicism were not established as rules of memberships but as “ideals”.”

“These are all ideals that we must try to live up to. If you do not meet all these ideals, it does not mean that you cannot take your place at the table the Lord has prepared for you. **The Church is a refuge for the weak, not a home for the perfect."

****“I welcome all to the Church and I would encourage everyone to welcome all. I will hear no condemnation or rejection of people. Jesus loves his people no less in their absence,” **he said."

“Bishop Buckley said that people needed to realise, especially in a time of recession, that religion is about hope and strength and not about condemnation.”

**“Jesus Christ is a message of hope, a message of joy, we must share it. As Pope Benedict said ‘many people now think the Church is a collection of prohibitions, but it is not. It’s positive, it’s totally different,” he said. **
irishexaminer.com/ireland/church-will-not-reject-people-says-bishop-218553.html

yet another imbibed assumption going here…implying the alleged “deep ignorance of the Faith” (if this is true?) is due to Bishops like Bishop Buckley is unfair

 

[numealinesimpet]

Actually, it’s mostly those who think they are above the Church.

Do you mean the SSPX and those who attend their Mass centres?
If it comes to numbers, is it not the case that those who stopped obeying the Church’s laws on contraception, matrimony, etc, and those whose children come back from school and parish ignorant of these things; and worldwide, those who stopped practising the Faith (ie going to Mass and the sacraments) hugely outnumber those labelled as ‘Traditionalist’?

 

[numealinesimpet]

This is not happening in the States. Almost all Catholics are still in union with the Holy Father.

Do they obey him on contraception, matrimony, abortion? On the doctrines of The Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, the necessity of the Sacrament of Reconciliation? Are there any figures on this?
Bl. Pope John Paul spoke of a “Silent Apostasy”.

 

[choliks]

Do you mean the SSPX and those who attend their Mass centres?
If it comes to numbers, is it not the case that those who stopped obeying the Church’s laws on contraception, matrimony, etc, and those whose children come back from school and parish ignorant of these things; and worldwide, those who stopped practising the Faith (ie going to Mass and the sacraments) hugely outnumber those labelled as ‘Traditionalist’?

I don’t think I singled out the SSPX and those who attend their chapels. I was referring generally to those who think they know better than the Church from both sides of the spectrum.