J
jeannetherese
Guest
Patience and prayer… May our Lord bless them and keep them and guide them home. Amen.
- Status
M
missadeangelis
Guest
I advise caution here. Bishop Fellay spoke for over an hour and a half, which is difficult to condense in a news article of a few hundred words. In my opinion this article lacks the full context necessary to understand what the Bishop actually meant and was trying to get across in the message he delivered. The inflammatory statements regarding the “enemies” of the Church are a bit misleading in their presentation. I suggest listening to the whole statement personally prior to drawing any absolute conclusions or opinions.I have this latest update to offer but do so very sadly, as it looks to me like the SSPX will never, certainly in this generation, enter into full communion with the Church and all the efforts of our Holy Father have come to nothing, except a sorrow that all mother’s bear when their child is prodigal.
Bishop Fellay has for the past few months been travelling the globe giving sermons to his followers stating that it was due to being misled by vatican officials that he appeared to be betraying the SSPX position and that he personally had no intention of NOT holding the line…
"In an audio recording from a nearly two-hour talk Dec. 28 at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Academy in New Hamburg, Ont., Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the society, claimed that top Vatican officials told him not to be discouraged by official statements from the Vatican, because they did not reflect Pope Benedict XVI’s true feelings.
The Vatican press office declined to comment Jan. 4 on the claims."
“Apparently speaking without a text, he also 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.””
“Those most opposed to the Church granting canonical recognition to the traditionalist society have been “the enemies of the Church: the Jews, the Masons,” he said.”
There was no response Jan. 4 from the society’s Swiss headquarters to a Catholic News Service e-mail request for comment.
**
"The unofficial assurances were what kept him engaged in talks, he said, since the Vatican’s official demands, which carried the Pope’s approval, “would mean the end of our relation with Rome.”**
"Fellay said, “Even in the council there are some things we accept,” as well as reject, however, the group wishes to be free to say, “there are errors in the council” and that "the new Mass is evil."Code:"Fellay said Pope Benedict wrote to him, emphasizing that full recognition required the society accept the magisterium as the judge of what is tradition, accept the council as an integral part of tradition and accept that the modern Mass is valid and licit."
“The group will not accept reconciliation if it means no longer being able to make such pronouncements, he said.”
catholicregister.org/news/international/item/15637-sspx-head-says-vatican-sent-mixed-messages-during-reconciliation-talks
mda
D
Dee_S
Guest
Yes, it is a very long talk to explain to his followers that he had not had any intention to “betray” the cause and reconcile with Rome, nor to accept their offer of a Personal Prelature under the conditions of the Doctrinal Preamble - nor those of the Holy Father who wrote to him to confirm the conditions for full communion.
This wrong impression given of his actions (intending to betray the Society) he blames on Rome, who he claims has been presenting him with “contradictions” since as far back as 2009 (when the excommunications were lifted) and he cites Rome as the “major cause” of confusion and distrust among the members/followers of the Society to the point of false accusations against himself and the leadership of the SSPX which he claims are contrary to what actually happened and which had no grounds.
He begins by saying that this caused one of the greatest of the ‘trials’ (the loss of confidence in the leadership of the SSPX) that the Society has had to face…this time extending to the whole of the Society…very rare in the history of the Society. “The Good Lord allowed our work to be tested by the devil”.
Here is a link to a site which has the video on it
commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=22593
D
Dee_S
Guest
These extracts contradict what Bishop Fellay is trying to say right now - although he could go on to claim they were made in the midst of the “confusion” created by Vatican officials
DICI: *The year 2012 is not 1988, the year of your episcopal consecration. In 2009 the excommunications were lifted, in 2007 it was officially acknowledged that the Tridentine Mass had “never been abrogated”, but now some members of the Society lament the fact that the Church has not yet converted. Is their *a priori *refusal of a canonical recognition due to forty years of an exceptional situation, resulting in a certain inability to understand submission to authority?
*
Bishop Fellay:"** What is happening these days clearly shows some of our weaknesses with regard to the dangers that are created by the situation in which we find ourselves. One of the great dangers is to end up inventing an idea of the Church that appears ideal, but is in fact not found in the real history of the Church. Some claim that in order to work “safely” in the Church, she must first be cleansed of all error. This is what they say when they declare that Rome must convert before any agreement, or that its errors must first be suppressed so that we can work. But that is not the reality. ** It is enough to look at the Church’s past: often, and almost always, we see that there are widespread errors in the Church. ** Now the reforming saints did not leave the Church in order to combat these errors.** Our Lord taught us that there would always be weeds until the end of time. Not just the good crop, not only the wheat."
“At the time of the Arians, the bishops labored in the midst of errors to convince those who were mistaken about the truth. They did not say that they wanted to be outside, as some say now. Of course, we must always be very careful about these expressions, “inside”, “outside”, because we are of the Church and we are Catholic.”
"But can we for that reason refuse to convince those who are in the Church, on the pretext that they are full of errors? Look at what the saints did! ** If the Good Lord allows us to be in a new situation, in close combat in the service of the truth**…. This is the reality that Church history presents to us. The Gospel compares Christians to yeast; and do we want the dough to rise without us being in the dough?"
"In this situation, which some currently depict as an impossible situation**, we are being asked to come and work just as all the reforming saints of all times did. Certainly that does not do away with the danger. But if we have sufficient freedom to act, to live and to grow, this must be done. ** I really think that this must be done, on the condition that we have sufficient protection."
From A Interview with Bishop Fellay on relations with Rome DICI June8,2012
DICI: *The year 2012 is not 1988, the year of your episcopal consecration. In 2009 the excommunications were lifted, in 2007 it was officially acknowledged that the Tridentine Mass had “never been abrogated”, but now some members of the Society lament the fact that the Church has not yet converted. Is their *a priori *refusal of a canonical recognition due to forty years of an exceptional situation, resulting in a certain inability to understand submission to authority?
*
Bishop Fellay:"** What is happening these days clearly shows some of our weaknesses with regard to the dangers that are created by the situation in which we find ourselves. One of the great dangers is to end up inventing an idea of the Church that appears ideal, but is in fact not found in the real history of the Church. Some claim that in order to work “safely” in the Church, she must first be cleansed of all error. This is what they say when they declare that Rome must convert before any agreement, or that its errors must first be suppressed so that we can work. But that is not the reality. ** It is enough to look at the Church’s past: often, and almost always, we see that there are widespread errors in the Church. ** Now the reforming saints did not leave the Church in order to combat these errors.** Our Lord taught us that there would always be weeds until the end of time. Not just the good crop, not only the wheat."
“At the time of the Arians, the bishops labored in the midst of errors to convince those who were mistaken about the truth. They did not say that they wanted to be outside, as some say now. Of course, we must always be very careful about these expressions, “inside”, “outside”, because we are of the Church and we are Catholic.”
"But can we for that reason refuse to convince those who are in the Church, on the pretext that they are full of errors? Look at what the saints did! ** If the Good Lord allows us to be in a new situation, in close combat in the service of the truth**…. This is the reality that Church history presents to us. The Gospel compares Christians to yeast; and do we want the dough to rise without us being in the dough?"
"In this situation, which some currently depict as an impossible situation**, we are being asked to come and work just as all the reforming saints of all times did. Certainly that does not do away with the danger. But if we have sufficient freedom to act, to live and to grow, this must be done. ** I really think that this must be done, on the condition that we have sufficient protection."
From A Interview with Bishop Fellay on relations with Rome DICI June8,2012
C
choliks
Guest
Sounds like somebody’s trying to throw a wrench into the process.
M
Moore11
Guest
A few pages back there is a link to the whole speech. It has already been commented on by myself and others.These extracts contradict what Bishop Fellay is trying to say right now - although he could go on to claim they were made in the midst of the “confusion” created by Vatican officials
DICI: *The year 2012 is not 1988, the year of your episcopal consecration. In 2009 the excommunications were lifted, in 2007 it was officially acknowledged that the Tridentine Mass had “never been abrogated”, but now some members of the Society lament the fact that the Church has not yet converted. Is their *a priori *refusal of a canonical recognition due to forty years of an exceptional situation, resulting in a certain inability to understand submission to authority?
*
Bishop Fellay:"** What is happening these days clearly shows some of our weaknesses with regard to the dangers that are created by the situation in which we find ourselves. One of the great dangers is to end up inventing an idea of the Church that appears ideal, but is in fact not found in the real history of the Church. Some claim that in order to work “safely” in the Church, she must first be cleansed of all error. This is what they say when they declare that Rome must convert before any agreement, or that its errors must first be suppressed so that we can work. But that is not the reality. ** It is enough to look at the Church’s past: often, and almost always, we see that there are widespread errors in the Church. ** Now the reforming saints did not leave the Church in order to combat these errors.** Our Lord taught us that there would always be weeds until the end of time. Not just the good crop, not only the wheat."
“At the time of the Arians, the bishops labored in the midst of errors to convince those who were mistaken about the truth. They did not say that they wanted to be outside, as some say now. Of course, we must always be very careful about these expressions, “inside”, “outside”, because we are of the Church and we are Catholic.”
"But can we for that reason refuse to convince those who are in the Church, on the pretext that they are full of errors? Look at what the saints did! ** If the Good Lord allows us to be in a new situation, in close combat in the service of the truth**…. This is the reality that Church history presents to us. The Gospel compares Christians to yeast; and do we want the dough to rise without us being in the dough?"
"In this situation, which some currently depict as an impossible situation**, we are being asked to come and work just as all the reforming saints of all times did. Certainly that does not do away with the danger. But if we have sufficient freedom to act, to live and to grow, this must be done. ** I really think that this must be done, on the condition that we have sufficient protection."
From A Interview with Bishop Fellay on relations with Rome DICI June8,2012
P
pnewton
Guest
Might I ask what is in the context that might make these statements appropriate? It you do not think they fairly represent Bp. Fellay, then why?
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Dee likes to cut and paste. I think she might be a primary school teacher!
J
JReducation
Guest
I believe that the problem is easy to understand, but not easy to fix, because there are too many cooks in the kitchen.
I have said it before and I’ll say it again. Never in the history of the Church have we see an institute where the laity and so many other clergy and religious are so involved in the decisions that the institute makes.
I understand that it was at the general chapter that the conclusions were drawn and that only delegates attended the general chapter. Let’s face the truth, those delegates were given an assignment by the laity, priests and other religious associated withe the Society. They did not go there with a blank slate to listen and decide what to do next. People told them what they wanted them to push and what they wanted them to reject. Some may have ignored their constituency and voted according to their conscience, but I’m sure that some voted according to their constituency.
On some other Traditionalists site, I have seen lay people threaten the SSPX. They threaten to withdraw financial support. They threaten to leave and join the sedevacantists. They threaten to take over property that belongs to the SSPX should the Society come to an agreement with Rome.
I saw the transcript of a meeting where the superior of the Capuchins at Morgon, France got up and raked Bishop Fellay over the coals. There are a few things wrong with this. The Rule of St. Francis is very clear that the friars owe obedience and fidelity to him, the pope and the local bishop alone. Bishop Fellay is neither St. Francis nor pope, neither was Archbishop Lefebvre. This man has no legal status in the Franciscan order, because he operates a renegade house that does not submit to the superior general of the order. What business does this man have at a meeting of the SSPX and what right does he have giving the SSPX his opinion on what the Society should do? That would be like me walking into the general chapter of the Jesuits and telling them to behave because the conservative Catholics on CAF are upset with them. It may be true, but I’m not a Jesuit and what the Jesuits do is not my business. It’s the pope’s business.
There was the case of a Benedictine Abbot calling on the SSPX bishops to come to confirm the children of their religious education program and to ordain some of his monks. First of all, confirmation is the right and duty of the local bishop. No one has the right to invite an outside bishop to administer this sacrament in someone else’s diocese. Secondly, the ordination of a religious to the priesthood is under the authority of his superior and the superior can pick any bishop he wants, as long as that bishop has faculties to ordain. A suspended bishop is not supposed to be celebrating any sacraments in public. The Benedictine abbot had no business inviting an SSPX bishop instead of the local bishop to do the confirmations and he had no business inviting an SSPX bishop to ordain his monks. Now he has monks who are illegally ordained, therefore, they are suspended monks. If he had kept his distance, let the SSPX figure things out on their own and solved his own problems, he would have contributed more to the good of the Church.
Finally, the SSPX started out as a priestly society and has become like a church with seminaries, schools, colleges, religious sisters, religious brothers, tertiaries, oblates, guilds and clubs, a tribunal of its own, it’s own parishes without jurisdiction from the local bishop.
They are to be admired, because of all they have achieved in 40 years, but they are also to be helped. They have created a world of their own and it’s probably very frightening to them and their constituency to get out of that world. We need to show them that they will be OK, that other Catholics will help them and that the Church will protect them.
Fraternally,
Br JR, FFV
I have said it before and I’ll say it again. Never in the history of the Church have we see an institute where the laity and so many other clergy and religious are so involved in the decisions that the institute makes.
I understand that it was at the general chapter that the conclusions were drawn and that only delegates attended the general chapter. Let’s face the truth, those delegates were given an assignment by the laity, priests and other religious associated withe the Society. They did not go there with a blank slate to listen and decide what to do next. People told them what they wanted them to push and what they wanted them to reject. Some may have ignored their constituency and voted according to their conscience, but I’m sure that some voted according to their constituency.
On some other Traditionalists site, I have seen lay people threaten the SSPX. They threaten to withdraw financial support. They threaten to leave and join the sedevacantists. They threaten to take over property that belongs to the SSPX should the Society come to an agreement with Rome.
I saw the transcript of a meeting where the superior of the Capuchins at Morgon, France got up and raked Bishop Fellay over the coals. There are a few things wrong with this. The Rule of St. Francis is very clear that the friars owe obedience and fidelity to him, the pope and the local bishop alone. Bishop Fellay is neither St. Francis nor pope, neither was Archbishop Lefebvre. This man has no legal status in the Franciscan order, because he operates a renegade house that does not submit to the superior general of the order. What business does this man have at a meeting of the SSPX and what right does he have giving the SSPX his opinion on what the Society should do? That would be like me walking into the general chapter of the Jesuits and telling them to behave because the conservative Catholics on CAF are upset with them. It may be true, but I’m not a Jesuit and what the Jesuits do is not my business. It’s the pope’s business.
There was the case of a Benedictine Abbot calling on the SSPX bishops to come to confirm the children of their religious education program and to ordain some of his monks. First of all, confirmation is the right and duty of the local bishop. No one has the right to invite an outside bishop to administer this sacrament in someone else’s diocese. Secondly, the ordination of a religious to the priesthood is under the authority of his superior and the superior can pick any bishop he wants, as long as that bishop has faculties to ordain. A suspended bishop is not supposed to be celebrating any sacraments in public. The Benedictine abbot had no business inviting an SSPX bishop instead of the local bishop to do the confirmations and he had no business inviting an SSPX bishop to ordain his monks. Now he has monks who are illegally ordained, therefore, they are suspended monks. If he had kept his distance, let the SSPX figure things out on their own and solved his own problems, he would have contributed more to the good of the Church.
Finally, the SSPX started out as a priestly society and has become like a church with seminaries, schools, colleges, religious sisters, religious brothers, tertiaries, oblates, guilds and clubs, a tribunal of its own, it’s own parishes without jurisdiction from the local bishop.
They are to be admired, because of all they have achieved in 40 years, but they are also to be helped. They have created a world of their own and it’s probably very frightening to them and their constituency to get out of that world. We need to show them that they will be OK, that other Catholics will help them and that the Church will protect them.
Fraternally,
Br JR, FFV
J
jwinch2
Guest
What Archbishop Müller Said About the SSPX and “Continuity”
catholicworldreport.com/Item/1849/what_archbishop_mller_said_about_the_sspx_and_continuity.aspx
catholicworldreport.com/Item/1849/what_archbishop_mller_said_about_the_sspx_and_continuity.aspx
M
Moore11
Guest
Truer words have not been spoken…They are to be admired, because of all they have achieved in 40 years, but they are also to be helped. They have created a world of their own and it’s probably very frightening to them and their constituency to get out of that world. We need to show them that they will be OK, that other Catholics will help them and that the Church will protect them.
Fraternally,
Br JR, FFV
But to the first part Brother, I think you also could note that the Vatican has probably more bureaucracy than ever as well. It would seem both sides have a lot of cooks in the kitchen and both sides are releasing information designed to elicit a response from the other.
J
JReducation
Guest
I didn’t mention the bureaucracy at the Vatican because it’s their place to be there, unlike all of these other folks who are trying to be part of the SSPX’s daily affairs. Also, because when I hear Bishop Fellay speak about “One person told me one thing and another person told me something else,” it annoys me.
Any of us, bishops and major superiors, deal with the Vatican on a regular basis. We know that there are many voices in the Vatican. We also know that people at the Vatican are very human and they want to be helpful, but in attempting to be helpful they may speak out of turn. Unless they have been authorized to deliver a message, we take what they say in context. It is an attempt at kindness and it is speculation. For a major superior of an institute and a bishop of the Church not to know this or to use this as an excuse is unacceptable. Unless you’re a superior and a bishop who lives in a bubble. Bishop Fellay has been superior for more than 12 years.
A perfect example comes to my mind. When we applied to become an independent community, a certain cardinal told us that our request was very timely and it would be honored. That cardinal is part of the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life. A few months later, the local bishop told us that this had to wait and be discerned more. We waited two years. The local bishop trumps any cardinal on this matter. Only the pope can overrule him. Had we not known this, we would have gone around saying, “But a cardinal told us that the time was right and now the bishop tells us that it’s not right. Which is it?”
But we knew who had the last word on this matter and we waited for him to speak. We waited for two years to do what we wanted to do.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
M
Moore11
Guest
I know. And you are right but it is still frustrating and one cannot help but feel that if the Pope and Fellay were in a room together for an evening there would be a solution. Or at least no room for the SSPX to claim it is getting mixed signals…I didn’t mention the bureaucracy at the Vatican because it’s their place to be there, unlike all of these other folks who are trying to be part of the SSPX’s daily affairs. Also, because when I hear Bishop Fellay speak about “One person told me one thing and another person told me something else,” it annoys me.
Any of us, bishops and major superiors, deal with the Vatican on a regular basis. We know that there are many voices in the Vatican. We also know that people at the Vatican are very human and they want to be helpful, but in attempting to be helpful they may speak out of turn. Unless they have been authorized to deliver a message, we take what they say in context. It is an attempt at kindness and it is speculation. For a major superior of an institute and a bishop of the Church not to know this or to use this as an excuse is unacceptable. Unless you’re a superior and a bishop who lives in a bubble. Bishop Fellay has been superior for more than 12 years.
A perfect example comes to my mind. When we applied to become an independent community, a certain cardinal told us that our request was very timely and it would be honored. That cardinal is part of the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life. A few months later, the local bishop told us that this had to wait and be discerned more. We waited two years. The local bishop trumps any cardinal on this matter. Only the pope can overrule him. Had we not known this, we would have gone around saying, “But a cardinal told us that the time was right and now the bishop tells us that it’s not right. Which is it?”
But we knew who had the last word on this matter and we waited for him to speak. We waited for two years to do what we wanted to do.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
J
JReducation
Guest
It is not the Pope’s job to deal with the SSPX or with any institute in the Church. It’s not in his job description and he has more important things to deal with. This has been said everywhere in many polite ways.
I think it’s going to take a very blunt and rude statement from the Holy Father to get people to stop wishing for what is not usual and customary. The pope is going to have to say about the issue of the SSPX as he said about the LCWR. “It is not the pope’s job to meddle in the affairs of religious.” This was Pope Benedict’s clarification when he was asked to deal with this and also when he was asked to deal with the Legion of Christ. He handed both cases to the CDF.
The CDF does this and once a week, the prefect meets with the Holy Father for a briefing on whatever is of interest to the pope. The CDF deals with many things. The pope is not interested in hearing about everything. He has only an hour to hear the prefect. He picks and chooses, unless the prefect walks in saying that there is a fire for the pope to put out.
If the pope can sit in a room with the SSPX, then he should sit in a room with the superior general of the Legion of Christ, and the president of the LCWR, and the superior general of the Jesuits, and every bishop who has had sexual abuse in his diocese and the list goes on. The cue to these individual meetings with the pope would go around Vatican City.
We need to learn that the pope is the pope. He has his own agenda to follow and that the curia has its directions. We need to learn to deal with the curia and accept the curia’s authority in those matters that concern each dicastery.
During the years that he has been pope, His Holiness has had several priorities that only he could deal with: a) finishing his research, b) Muslim, Jewish and Catholic relations, c) the bishops and the sexual abuse scandal, and d) the suffering of Eastern Catholics. That’s enough for seven years.
I can’t see why this is so difficult for us to accept and live with the fact that we have to deal with the proper channels in the Church and that the pope is not the Alpha and the Omega. He can’t solve everything and he’s not interested in getting personally involved when there are people who are experts in these matters.
Again, I’ll give an example from everyday life. I’m the major superior of a community. When I have a problem that involves the diocese, I do not go to the bishop. He has better things to do. There is a Vicar for Religious. This is the bishop’s vicar. She deals with religious superiors. We tell her our problems and she tells us what the bishop would ask us to do. Most of the time, she has never asked the bishop. When she’s not really sure, she’ll ask the bishop and call us back. That’s the way the Church works, like the atom with the nucleus in the middle (pope) and the electrons, protons, and neutrons around it (the prefects, bishops and religious superiors).
Bishop Fellay is a superior. He has to start acting like one. Part of that is knowing, understanding and accepting the infrastructure of the Vatican, just like the rest of us. I’m not giving him a pass on this one.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
D
Dee_S
Guest
Quote - “A few pages back there is a link to the whole speech. It has already been commented on by myself and others.”
More than a few pages back actually (perhaps you could name the post number so I can access the link as I have not saved it:thankyou
The reason I re-posted some of that interview was to highlight the contradictions of Bishop Fellay, in the context of his present denials.
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...SZ2Ciq3ptrU3TRpQgSWJp9dBGOvLfTYcd5NW-0xuMfo5A
time for an excursion to the ice-cream parlor----
http://a2.tcdn.ru/assets/att/b5/dd/3923148_79786_5704753_4334786.jpg
More than a few pages back actually
(perhaps you could name the post number so I can access the link as I have not saved it:thankyouThe reason I re-posted some of that interview was to highlight the contradictions of Bishop Fellay, in the context of his present denials.
I take it you’re bored of cutting & pasting…Dee likes to cut and paste. I think she might be a primary school teacher!
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...SZ2Ciq3ptrU3TRpQgSWJp9dBGOvLfTYcd5NW-0xuMfo5A
time for an excursion to the ice-cream parlor----
http://a2.tcdn.ru/assets/att/b5/dd/3923148_79786_5704753_4334786.jpg
D
Dee_S
Guest
He actually has been several times. Take a look at the ending of this video clip, where Bishop Fellay http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/DdnJigNzTuY/mqdefault.jpg
says that it is thanks to the Holy Father that the present move to full communion and canonical recognition is taking place
“…personally I would have wished to wait for some more time to see things clearer, but once again, it appears that the Holy Father wants it to happen now, the will of the Holy Father, it comes from him, he’s genuine. If this recognition happens it’s thanks to him, definitely, and to him alone.”
youtube.com/watch?v=DdnJigNzTuY
**Published on May 15, 2012 **
An exclusive interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, at the society’s headquarters in Menzingen, Switzerland.
J
Justin_Swanton
Guest
The great strength of the SSPX is the fact that they have a valid axe to grind. Nothing is going to change until mainstream parish life cleans its act up, which means until the ‘progressist’ parishes described earlier in this thread turn into approximations of the ‘ideal’ parish. So long as a Catholic with a knowledge of his Faith and an instinct for reverence finds himself parish hopping like a cat on a hot tin roof, the SSPX will be there saying “I told you so.”They are to be admired, because of all they have achieved in 40 years, but they are also to be helped. They have created a world of their own and it’s probably very frightening to them and their constituency to get out of that world. We need to show them that they will be OK, that other Catholics will help them and that the Church will protect them.
Fraternally,
Br JR, FFV
Personally, I would like to see the guns turned around a bit, and aimed at the very serious shortcomings in mainstream parish life that in effect are propping up the SSPX’s position. Once catechetics is solid and orthodox, and liturgy is reverent and recollected, everywhere, not just here and there, then the Society’s position won’t have a leg to stand on. That is how the problem of the SSPX will be solved. Until then it’s just King Lear shouting in a storm.
J
JReducation
Guest
If men like St. Augustine, St. Bernard of Clarevaux, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Dominic, St. Ignaitius of Loyola and women like St. Teresa of Avila, and Bl. Teresa of Calcutta has held this position that the Church had to clean up its act before they obliged the pope and obeyed, we would not have the wonderful fruit of their work and the great spiritual schools that they left us.
The Church, like her master is human and divine, with one difference. Her humanity is affected by the ravages of Original sin. This has been the case since the first day that Peter set out to preach on Pentecost Sunday and has never changed. One crisis has replaced another, one weakness is overcome and another pops up and so forth.
This was the position of Martin Luther. He would not work with the Church until the Church cleaned house. The more intransigent he became, the more distorted his view of the Church and of Christian doctrine became.
If the SSPX wants to wait until every parish runs ideally, then the SSPX shall remain outside of full communion and will never have a canonical place in the Church. This may seem trivial to some, but it’s of great importance to the Magisterium and to the reformers of history. These holy reformers not only won the crown of sanctity, but they proved that you can only change one thing at a time and you leave the rest to the next reformer who comes along. None of them transformed every parish and every religious community into the ideal. They succeeded in doing several things. They transformed their sphere. They gave to the Church the gift of their charism which goes on today. Most important to all of them, they remained in full canonical communion with the Primacy, which the SSPX lacks.
The four conditions that the Holy Father has laid out for full communion and canonical recognition of the SSPX are no different from what is expected of everyone else.
- Acknowledge and comply with the fact that only the pope can decide what is and is not part of Tradition.
- Acknowledge that the Ordinary Form of the mass is BOTH valid and licit. The SSPX says that it’s ilicit. To quote Bishop Fellay “It’s bad.” He’s not talking about the silliness that people insert into the mass. He says that the form itself is doctrinally bad. He’s making a judgment that’s contrary to that of five popes and teaching something that is contrary to what the Church teaches about this particular form of the mass.
- To acknowledge that the decrees of Vatican II are part of Tradition; therefore, they are error free. No one said that they do not need clarification and greater explanation or better implementation. What the pope is demanding is that the SSPX stop saying that the documents contradict the faith. There are many teachings that are faithful, but not very clear. Try reading the works of St. Catherine of Sienna.
- To accept that the CCC is the official catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism of St. Pius X was never the official catechism of the Catholic Church, nor was the Baltimore Catechism. The CCC is based on the Catechism of Trent, which is one of the official catechisms of the Church. There is nothing in it that contradicts the faith.
We need to look at this situation from the perspective of a priestly society that has no canonical place in the Church and that if it complies with these four requirements could probably produce a few men like the great saints and reformers of the past. But you cannot produce saints in an environment of disobedience, when there is no justifiable moral reason to disobey. Bishop Fellay himself said “The Pope is not asking us to violate the Commandments.”
J
JReducation
Guest
The SSPX is sponsoring disobedience where it’s inappropriate to do so. You have the case of the Capuchins at Morgon France who have clearly excommunicated themselves. The Rule of St. Francis states very clearly that the friars shall obey the Lord Pope, Francis and his canonical successors and the Lord Bishop and that any friar who fails to do so be excommunicated and dismissed.
Did the SSPX encourage those friars to obey the superior general of the Capuchin Franciscans? The SSPX has taken them under its wings and even allowed them to use the name Capuchin Franciscans, even though they are no longer part of the Capuchin Order.
Did the SSPX encourage the abbot who recently asked Bishop Fellay to come to ordain his monks without asking for the permission of the local bishop to bring another bishop into his diocese? The Rule of St. Benedict is the Rule of Perfect and Unquestioning Obedience to the Church and to the Abbot. But when the abbot fails to obey the Church, the abbot forfeits his right to be obeyed in the matter that he commands, even though he maintains his right in other matters.
There is much more to this than laymen who want to go to a reverent mass and the kindly SSPX helping them out. There is also blatant violations of law. In the Church, a violation of law is a crime. Canon Law has no misdemeanors It’s not written that way. If your violate the law, you’ve committed a crime and you have take a step back and rectify. The Church is always there to help us rectify. She’s not out to beat us over the head.
There are many of us, beyond the Vatican, who want to help the SSPX and the lay faithful who follow it, but not by going contrary to the requirements of the pope.
I for one will not allow any of my brothers who say that Vatican II taught errors, that the CCC contains errors, that the OF is illicit or bad, that the pope cannot tell us what is and what is not part of Tradition. I will welcome any Catholic who needs help with his spiritual life and who is looking for orthodox guidance, but the person must understand that I will never say anything contrary to what the pope or the bishop says unless they say something sinful. If a traditionalist comes knocking at our door, they are welcome and we will minister to them, but under the conditions laid out by the Holy Father and the local bishop. Even as a major superior, I have no authority to contradict the pope or the bishop unless they order me to sin.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
Did the SSPX encourage those friars to obey the superior general of the Capuchin Franciscans? The SSPX has taken them under its wings and even allowed them to use the name Capuchin Franciscans, even though they are no longer part of the Capuchin Order.
Did the SSPX encourage the abbot who recently asked Bishop Fellay to come to ordain his monks without asking for the permission of the local bishop to bring another bishop into his diocese? The Rule of St. Benedict is the Rule of Perfect and Unquestioning Obedience to the Church and to the Abbot. But when the abbot fails to obey the Church, the abbot forfeits his right to be obeyed in the matter that he commands, even though he maintains his right in other matters.
There is much more to this than laymen who want to go to a reverent mass and the kindly SSPX helping them out. There is also blatant violations of law. In the Church, a violation of law is a crime. Canon Law has no misdemeanors It’s not written that way. If your violate the law, you’ve committed a crime and you have take a step back and rectify. The Church is always there to help us rectify. She’s not out to beat us over the head.
There are many of us, beyond the Vatican, who want to help the SSPX and the lay faithful who follow it, but not by going contrary to the requirements of the pope.
I for one will not allow any of my brothers who say that Vatican II taught errors, that the CCC contains errors, that the OF is illicit or bad, that the pope cannot tell us what is and what is not part of Tradition. I will welcome any Catholic who needs help with his spiritual life and who is looking for orthodox guidance, but the person must understand that I will never say anything contrary to what the pope or the bishop says unless they say something sinful. If a traditionalist comes knocking at our door, they are welcome and we will minister to them, but under the conditions laid out by the Holy Father and the local bishop. Even as a major superior, I have no authority to contradict the pope or the bishop unless they order me to sin.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
J
Justin_Swanton
Guest
Sure, brother. No-one is querying that. The point is to recognise that ignoring the sometimes disastrous situation in contemporary parishes because to do so would imply a criticism of the hierarchy who oversee this situation, isn’t going to help anybody. One must respect and obey one’s hierarchical superiors in all that is not sin, but one must not forget that priests and bishops can fail spectacularly in their ecclesiastical mission, as did the quasi-totality of the English hierarchy during the reign of Henry VIII.
It’s no use saying, “Such-and-such a parish is in good standing with its bishop, who himself is in good standing with Rome, therefore I have to accept and not criticise the lamentable state of its catechism.” The saints precisely started their reforms because they did ***not ***tell themselves that.
And sometimes it has been necessary, in a time of crisis, to remind the prelates in the Church of their duty, as St Paul did St Peter in Antioch: “I opposed him to his face”. There is a fine line to walk between accepting the decisions of one’s superior when no spiritual good is at stake, and not accepting it when it is. I would say bad catechism is a pretty major spiritual good at stake, as is a badly celebrated liturgy (the ‘not accepting’ means taking active steps to compensate for harmful effects of the bad decisions, all the while maintaining respect for superior concerned. It doesn’t mean sticking inflammatory notices on the parish noticeboard).
I remember a very good post of yours about how to work ***with ***the clergy and hierarchy in restoring things in the Church - a woman as I remember, who was respectful when stating succinctly what needed to be done and how she proposed doing it. She was made a prime part of the process, if I recall correctly. Snorting and stamping obviously isn’t going to achieve anything.
Right. So one needs to clean house which means recognise there is dirt on the floor needing removal. Recognise, announce, repeat, state, repeat again. ***Not ***put up with.
Absolutely. What is needed are distinctions (which I have mentioned in earlier posts). I have the impression Bishop Fellay was beginning to see the light earlier this year but there has been some major backpedalling since then. A real shame, but what can you do? Just get back to our own job of building up the Mystical Body.
- Status