SSPX update?

[pnewton]

This is another real problem with some people. They want religious brothers and sisters, as long as they don’t have to play by the rules. It does not work that way. If you want us around, there are ground rules.

I am glad you are around here. However, I have to say I am still learning about religious. If I have learned anything by your posts it is the nature of religious life. I am still learning. I still see new things you say about the Franciscan life I did not know. I just learned something new.

I have my own stumbling block of moral teaching that I have been working through the last fifteen years. I have always tried understand that it is my responsibility to understand the mind of the Church, not convince the Church, or others I am right. (FYI, it is the death penalty. Let me say that to dispel speculation.)

 

[Dee_S]

Originally Posted by Justin Swanton forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Let me risk the bullet and the Bull and repeat that informing oneself of controverted points of the Faith is the duty of any Catholic, ***but ***let me qualify it by adding that ‘any Catholic’ needs to be reasonably intelligent as theology is not everyone’s cup of tea,…

Every Catholic is encouraged to read the Bible, yet one does not have to be a biblical scholar to benefit from it…

Cardinal Ratzinger in the book The Ratzinger Report also encourages us to read the documents of Vatican II…and according to our capacity, we will also benefit from them.

He says they did not define any new dogmas at the Council, but that it contains all the dogmatic teachings of the Church…

It’s a matter of reading with trust…there is nothing harmful in these documents according to him.

“Hence it is not Vatican II and its documents (it is hardly necessary to recall this) that are problematic. At all events many see the problem - and Joseph Ratzinger is among them, and not just since yesterday - to lie in the manifold interpretations of those documents which have led to many abuses in the post-conciliar period.”

"He (Cardinal Ratzinger) says: “I am convinced that the damage that we have incurred in these twenty years is due, not to the ‘true’ Council, but to the unleashing *within *the Church of latent polemical and centrifual forces; and *outside *the Church it is due to the confrontation with a cultural revolution in the West; the success of the upper middle-class, the new ‘tertiary bourgeoisie’, with its liberal-radical ideology of individualistic, rationalistic and hedonistic stamp.”

"Hence his message, his exhortation to all Catholics who wish to remain such, is certainly not to “turn back” but, rather, “to return to the authentic texts of the orginial Vatican II.”

 

[Dee_S]

Here is the latest update from the Vatican:

VATICAN CITY (RNS) The Vatican reaffirmed its commitment to dialogue with Jews on Monday (Jan. 7) after the head of a traditionalist breakaway group called them “enemies of the Church.”

The Vatican chief spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said that it was “meaningless” and “unacceptable” to label Jews as “enemies” of the Catholic Church.

In a statement, the American branch of the SSPX dismissed the “false accusations of anti-Semitism or hate speech” made against the group.
It said the SSPX leader used the word “enemies” as a “religious concept,” referring to “any group or religious sect which opposes the mission of the Catholic Church and her efforts to fulfill it: the salvation of souls.”

“Fellay’s comment was aimed at the leaders of Jewish organizations, and not the Jewish people, as is being implied by journalists,” the group said.

On Monday, Lombardi stressed that he was not directly responding to Fellay’s words but merely restating the church’s official position on relations with Jews, which dates to the Second Vatican Council. He declined to comment on the potential impact of Fellay’s words on the dialogue between the Vatican and the SSPX.

The dialogue is currently stalled as the Vatican awaits the SSPX’s response to a reconciliation offer submitted last June. Leaked SSPX documents slammed the proposal as “clearly unacceptable,” but the Vatican signaled in October that it is willing to give the traditionalists “additional time for reflection and study.”
religionnews.com/2013/01/07/traditionalist-sspx-leader-calls-jews-enemies-of-the-church/

VATICAN CITY - The Vatican on Monday dismissed anti-Semitic comments by the head of a rebel Catholic traditionalist group, saying the Roman church did not see Jews as enemies.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the rebel Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), said last month that Jews were among those “who over centuries have been enemies of the Church”.

Jewish support for the modernizing reforms of the 1962-1965 Second Vatican Council showed they were opposed to the Church, he said. The SSPX rejects the Council as a heretical event that betrayed age-old Catholic teaching and undermined the Church.
gmanetwork.com/news/story/289204/news/world/vatican-rejects-rebel-bishop-s-denunciation-of-jews

p.s. Ringil was right - this is set to become an issue by the looks of things*

(copy/pasting goes on…all in a good cause)*

 

[Aramis]

I’M SOOOOO DUMB!!! :banghead:

Never attribute to muteness nor stupidity what is simple human frailty. At least not publicly - especially in a case where it’s clearly an inobvious element to the majority, and a picayune (but vital) bit of canonical nitpicking that could easily be overlooked.

Blind, perhaps. Dumb? I doubt it. Stupidity would still not follow the logic.

I had not seen this until you just put it together. I was wondering why the Vatican kept saying that they had not received an official response and Bishop Fellay kept saying that they had said, “No.” It all just made sense when I saw your post. Allow me to explain with an example.

Every community must have a general chapter. Whatever the general chapter says, becomes the law of the community, as long as it does not contradict Canon Law or the rule given by the founder. However, there are legal conditions here.

First: There are regular general chapters.
…]
Second: The SSPX has no canonical place in the Church. Therefore, the Church cannot grant the SSPX permission to have a special general chapter. In that case, this general chapter that the SSPX just held does not exist in the mind of the law. If it does not exist, whatever came out of it, is not official.

Conclusion: The only official answer can come from Bishop Fellay himself. He has to say, “I have decided not to bring the SSPX back home.” He can’t say “The general chapter has decided,” because the Church never put the answer in the hands of the general chapter.

yes, logically, it follows that way. When’s their next scheduled by the law general chapter?

And who all was excommunicated prior to 2009? Just the bishops, or all the Society? if the latter, would not his election be invalid for more votes than eligible voters (noting CIC 171).

 

[Melchior_1]

Making comments about Jewish folks when the Pope is the current head of Catholic-Jewish relations does not sound like a good way to gain favor.

If they say that they’re going to ordain successors, there are serious problems.

This will probably be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

 

[Boulder257]

I’M SOOOOO DUMB!!! :banghead:

I had not seen this until you just put it together. I was wondering why the Vatican kept saying that they had not received an official response and Bishop Fellay kept saying that they had said, “No.” It all just made sense when I saw your post. Allow me to explain with an example.

Every community must have a general chapter. Whatever the general chapter says, becomes the law of the community, as long as it does not contradict Canon Law or the rule given by the founder. However, there are legal conditions here.

First: There are regular general chapters. For example, my community’s constitution says that we shall have a general chapter every three years and that we shall elect a superior general every six years. Once the constitution was approved by the proper authorities, we don’t have to ask for permission to have our trienniel general chapter. However, if we want to have a special general chapter out of sequence, then we must have the permission of the proper legal authority, either the bishop or the Holy See.

Second: The SSPX has no canonical place in the Church. Therefore, the Church cannot grant the SSPX permission to have a special general chapter. In that case, this general chapter that the SSPX just held does not exist in the mind of the law. If it does not exist, whatever came out of it, is not official.

Conclusion: The only official answer can come from Bishop Fellay himself. He has to say, “I have decided not to bring the SSPX back home.” He can’t say “The general chapter has decided,” because the Church never put the answer in the hands of the general chapter.

He can certainly consult anyone he wants, but in the end, the answer must say, "I Bernard Fellay have decided . . . . " That’s what Rome is waiting for.

As long as he does not send that note to them, the whole situation is on standby. If he sends an official note with his name and signature, taking responsibility for the “No,” he risks being in schism. The next question is going to be, “So what happens when you and the other bishops get too old to govern?”

If they say that they’re going to ordain successors, there are serious problems.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Very informative. I didn’t understand this is what is happening behind the scenes, but now it makes sense. Dee, I appreciate you keeping us updated. Quite frankly, it’s nice to just have facts rather than people’s prejudiced and influenced interpretations of events. Brother JR, I apprecaite you taking the time to explain these things to people like me, who aren’t as familar with the intricacies of the law.

Having said that, I have a question for anyone who wants to take the time to answer it. I hear from this forum a great deal of discontent with those that are termed “cafeteria Catholics.” I understand the concern and also find it frustrating at times. However, wouldn’t the SSPX fall into this group as well? The above is a perfect example of how the SSPX continues to pick and choose what laws, traditions, and authority they will recognize, all in the name of Tradition. How is this any different from those that pick and choose in the opposing arguments? The way I see it, it’s two sides of the same coin. . Both groups call themselves Catholic, both groups say they are faithful, both groups claim to “know better.” Neither group is failthful to the Church, both pick and choose, and each interpret tradition and law to defend their personal preferences while ignoring authority.

 

[Boulder257]

Making comments about Jewish folks when the Pope is the current head of Catholic-Jewish relations does not sound like a good way to gain favor.

This will probably be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

I have thought this several times and the Holy Father has proved to be significantly more patient than I. Unfortunately, it appears as those within the SSPX and those that support them read weakness into his patience. I think this is a very dangerous, and incorrect, assumption. While I tend to agree that the events surrounding the last few months are signaling a return to division and eventually, a definitive statement by the Holy Father, I continue to pray that the disobedient will turn back to the Church.

 

[ringil]

If they say that they’re going to ordain successors, there are serious problems.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Well their Bishops are pretty young so they certainly have some time. Maybe they are waiting for the next Pope?

But I have to echo other folks regarding Benedict. This fellow sure is playing it soft with the SSPX. I say that in an admiring way- not as a criticism.

I can just see how the actions taken by SSPX could be seen as so insubordinate.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Fourth:

I was not going to copy and paste, but I have to on this one or my response will make no sense.

ARE YOU TOTALLY INSENSITIVE OR JUST DISRESPECTFUL???

Do you realize that when a religious tells you that he cannot discuss a certain point because he risks dismissal from his community and suffers a curse of eternal damnation imposed by his founder that this is not to be taken lightly? When he tells you such, it is a polite way of telling you to drop the subject or take it up with someone else who is free to discuss it.

To go back to it with the same religious is either insensitive or disrespectful. What it says to me is that you did not take seriously what to us is very serious. It’s a failure to validate our reality.

This is another real problem with some people. They want religious brothers and sisters, as long as they don’t have to play by the rules. It does not work that way. If you want us around, there are ground rules.

If one wants to be a traditionalist, one must also remember that religious families are part of Catholic tradition and that we have laws are part of that tradition, which the laity, secular clergy and the religious must respect. We, religious, are not accessories in the Church. We are essential to the life of the Catholic Church. Therefore, it is imperative that people respect our laws and rules. When we say that we do not discuss something, drop it or take it to someone else. Do not put our souls in danger just to please yourself.

You say that every Catholic must be informed and intelligent, well inform yourself on this one too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Brother, positively the last thing on my mind is the wish to give offence either by insensitivity or by disrespect. It appears that what we have here is simply a misunderstanding, which, if I may, I would like to try and clear up.

A couple of principles.

1. Nobody tells a religious what to do except his superior. I wouldn’t dream of doing otherwise. References to reading Vatican II were aimed at layfolk living in the world, not to anyone in a religious institution. They have their own rule and charisma which determines what and how they study.
2. Doctrinal controversies within the Church are resolved by the Papacy in conjunction with the bishops. I wouldn’t dream of suggesting that the faithful (or anyone else not in the hierarchy) should take this burden upon themselves. My point was that it is beneficial for the faithful who have the ability, to inform themselves of a controverted doctrinal topic and its resolution by competent experts, since they live in the controversy. I cited religious freedom as an example.

Dee S’s example of ordinary people being encouraged to read the Bible even though it takes a slew of fields of expertise to fully unravel its meaning, is a good one (and who by the way, has made full sense of the Apocalypse?). This does not mean one should read Vatican II like a Protestant reads the Bible, basically making it mean whatever he wants it to. One needs a guiding hand, especially for controverted topics. I mentioned Catholic Culture as a good example. There are others, but ultimately the supreme guiding hand is the Vatican, who sets the limits for discussions on Vat II.
One of *Catholic Answers *primary goals, by the way, is to help Catholic read the Bible, not just from a spiritual but also from an apologetics point of view, studying the sacred texts to see their true meaning in the controversies surrounding them. This can and should be done for Vatican II as well.

As regards the terminology used in my post: well, I’ve reread it and for the life of me can’t see where the insult lies. For my part I didn’t mind the bit about getting shot or excommunicated at all - it actually made me chuckle. I saw straight away that there had been a misapprehension and wrote to correct it. I do very much regret that you took offence when no offence was meant.

Anyhow I hope this clarifies things.

 

[jwinch2]

The same is also true for the CCC. This book was not meant to be a teaching tool for the non-theologian. This books is meant to be a resource for other catechisms. Fr. Hardon takes a lot from here. The Catholic Catechism for Adults published by the USCCB takes a lot from here and is user friendly. LIfe Teen put out a very good book Called What Every Catholic Should Know. It’s very user friendly. It too comes from the CCC.

The writers never had the average man in the pew in mind when they wrote these texts. They were writing for their peers. The intent was that their peers would use these texts, along with what the Church already had in her treasury of writings to produce material appropriate for each country and age group. Did we fail to do this? Yes we did. There are now some bishops who are taking charge and doing what had to be done originally.

Brother, I agree for the most part on this. However, it is my understanding that Fr. Hardon’s Catechism was written well before the CCC. The first edition of the CCC was not promulgated by Blessed JP2 until 1992 and was published, for the first time, in French, that same year. Fr. Hardon’s Catechism was originally published in 1975, almost 20 years earlier. Am I missing something there?

Secondly, there is a large misunderstanding on the CCC being written, primarily, for bishops, theologians, etc. and as a resource for other catechisms, rather than being written for the lay person. I have had several discussions with those who adamantly disagree with that position, right here on CAF. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=727402

At the end of the day, if the laity is going to be encouraged to study certain things, such as the CCC or the documents of Vatican II, then those things should be clearly written so as not to lend themselves towards a misunderstanding of the deposit of Faith. As I noted, we see this also with documents from the USCCB, etc. which are directly aimed towards the laity. They aren’t any more clear than V2 or the CCC on most occasions.

Peace Brother,

 

[jwinch2]

“ambiguity”… that is a classic SSPXism! the logic of your disputation falls apart right there, sorry. One can’t be expected to believe that a Pontifical Commission is ambiguous.

Why not? I am certainly no supporter of the SSPX, but even I can see that there is often ambiguity on the part of the Church in her writings and yes, even from pontifical commissions. One does not need to be a dissenter or a traditionalist to see what is staring them in the face.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has stated that, in accordance with canon 144 someone who confesses to an SSPX priest while genuinely not knowing that the priest does not have the required faculty will be validly absolved, but that, with this exception, the sacraments of Penance and Matrimony in which SSPX priests are involved are invalid.[26]"/quote]

A second look at this makes me realise I missed the obvious. The exception applies primarily to an ordinary Catholic who wanders into an SSPX chapel (some of them are beautiful parish churches) and goes to confession not realising that the priest is in an irregular situation. It doesn’t prima facie apply to SSPX faithful. Sorry. ***I ***can be quite thick sometimes.

Which brings it down to the Church praxis, at least my experience and knowledge of it. So far as I know it is not standard practice to oblige ex-SSPX faithful to repeat their confessions or an exchange of their marriage vows. If this was standard practice then surely it would be well-known.

It might be to the point to compare SSPXers with the Catholic faithful, soon to be ex-faithful, living under Henry VIII. In the latter case everybody knew perfectly well that the king had no right to arrogate the Pope’s power to himself and break with Rome. They could not and indeed did not in conscience acquiesce to his decision. They acquiesced because it suited them which means they did it in bad faith. They became schismatics, and went to invalid sacraments conferred by their invalidly (or validly) ordained ministers.

The SSPX faithful if I may be so bold to suggest (gulp!), are not in quite the same position. Many of them went through the trauma of the 70’s, when the supposed reform was in full swing. Confronted by what was happening in their parishes, they were looking for a lifeboat, which appeared in the form of traditional minded priests and, a bit later, the SSPX. These faithful formed traditionalist groups, equating the liturgical and doctrinal mayhem around them with the big events that had happened at the same time, namely the Council and the OF Mass. In other words they by and large acted in good faith. I know this because I knew them, from 1981 onwards. Since then things have calmed down and the waters are receding, but these same faithful now live in a hermetically sealed container with semi-opaque walls that show them a distorted vision of the reality outside. They are told the New Mass is ‘bad’ and that Vat II is the mother of all postconciliar evils Open parentheses. I do not endorse these statements. I describe a situation. Close parentheses. Thus they are not in a position to see the truth for themselves. As anyone from the SSPX will tell you, it is very, very difficult to shake off the profound mistrust of the mainstream Church that goes with being a traditionalist. It is a long and painful mental journey.

Anyway, one can in charity presume that these faithful are still acting and living in good faith, and I would very much like to think that Holy Mother Church takes this into account, and does not turn their desire to live a reverent and spiritual sacramental life into a mockery. Somehow I think she takes care of them by giving them what they are sincerely looking for.

(and now let me dive for cover)

 

[Melchior_1]

Anyway, one can in charity presume that these faithful are still acting and living in good faith, and I would very much like to think that Holy Mother Church takes this into account, and does not turn their desire to live a reverent and spiritual sacramental life into a mockery. Somehow I think she takes care of them by giving them what they are sincerely looking for.

Be careful Justin, this is similar language that others use yet they get decried by traditionalists.

 

[Rich_C]

Be careful Justin, this is similar language that others use yet they get decried by traditionalists.

Are you referring to the idea of an implicit baptism of desire in the case of non-Christians? Don’t assume that traditionalists reject this idea.

/derail

 

[Dee_S]

Very informative. I didn’t understand this is what is happening behind the scenes, but now it makes sense. Dee, I appreciate you keeping us updated. Quite frankly, it’s nice to just have facts rather than people’s prejudiced and influenced interpretations of events. Brother JR, I apprecaite you taking the time to explain these things to people like me, who aren’t as familar with the intricacies of the law.

:thankyou:Boulder257, it can be hard work sometimes, and like you I prefer facts when it comes to updates & matters of consequence, dry as they can sometimes be :hammering:

Having said that, I have a question for anyone who wants to take the time to answer it. I hear from this forum a great deal of discontent with those that are termed “cafeteria Catholics.” I understand the concern and also find it frustrating at times. However, wouldn’t the SSPX fall into this group as well? The above is a perfect example of how the SSPX continues to pick and choose what laws, traditions, and authority they will recognize, all in the name of Tradition. How is this any different from those that pick and choose in the opposing arguments? The way I see it, it’s two sides of the same coin. .** Both groups call themselves Catholic, both groups say they are faithful, both groups claim to “know better.” Neither group is failthful to the Church, both pick and choose, and each interpret tradition and law to defend their personal preferences while ignoring authority.**

I’m pleased you raised this point (my bold) - neither the progressives nor the ultra-traditionalists can escape this definition.

 

[pnewton]

The SSPX faithful if I may be so bold to suggest (gulp!), are not in quite the same position. …(and now let me dive for cover)

I think you have an interesting perspective in the descriptive scenario. I can see where this rings true (more in the eighties than today) and it highlights the reason why judgement of the soul is reserved to God alone.

 

[Dee_S]

Are you referring to the idea of an implicit baptism of desire in the case of non-Christians? Don’t assume that traditionalists reject this idea.

/derail

These extracts may seem off the point, but the popular topic for some years in the Church has been to define ‘baptism of desire’ for salvation that suits the current tastes, and as you say, even traditionalists may not reject the current trend, or the “good faith” angle.

Quote: Justin Swanton “Anyway, one can in charity presume that these faithful are still acting and living in good faith, and I would very much like to think that Holy Mother Church takes this into account, and does not turn their desire to live a reverent and spiritual sacramental life into a mockery. Somehow I think she takes care of them by giving them what they are sincerely looking for.”
Surely you mean God instead of Holy Mother Church? How can the Church take care of them when they are so out on a limb, so to speak. She cares by warning them not to adhere to these suspended priests in an organization that has no canonical status. As P Newton wisely remarked, God’s mercy is best in this case.

The translated text of an address by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, given July 13, 1988, in Santiago, Chile before that nation’s bishops.

“It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church. Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolate Vatican II and which has provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it which give the impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II.”

“All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something else without telling people. The one way in which Vatican II can be made plausible is to present it as it is; one part of the unbroken, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her faith.”

“In the spiritual movements of the postconciliar era, there is not the slightest doubt that frequently there has been an obliviousness, or even a suppression, of the issue of truth: Here perhaps we confront the crucial problem for theology and for pastoral work today.”

“The “truth” is thought to be a claim that is too exalted, a “triumphalism” that cannot be permitted any longer. You see this attitude plainly in the crisis that troubles the missionary ideal and missionary practice.** If we do not point to the truth in announcing our faith, and if this truth is no longer essential for the salvation of Man, then the missions lose their meaning.” **

“In effect the conclusion has been drawn, and it has been drawn today, that in the future we need only seek that Christians should be good Christians, Muslims good Muslims, Hindus good Hindus, and so forth. If it comes to that, how are we to know when one is a “good” Christian, or a “good” Muslim?”

“The idea that all religions are – if you talk seriously – only symbols of what ultimately is incomprehensible is rapidly gaining ground in theology, and has already penetrated into liturgical practice. When things get to this point, faith is left behind, because faith really consists in the fact that I am committing myself to the truth so far as it is known. So in this matter also there is every motive to return to the right path.”

“If once again we succeed in pointing out and living the fullness of the Catholic religion with regard to these points, we may hope that the schism of Lefebvre will not be of long duration.”

 

[Melchior_1]

Are you referring to the idea of an implicit baptism of desire in the case of non-Christians? Don’t assume that traditionalists reject this idea.

/derail

As a general rule I don’t make wholesale generalizations, however the last thread on these boards regarding this topic there sure was a lot of noise and rejection of Baptism of Desire and/or Blood.

 

[Rich_C]

As a general rule I don’t make wholesale generalizations, however the last thread on these boards regarding this topic there sure was a **lot of noise **and rejection of Baptism of Desire and/or Blood.

Eh, it’s the Internet.

If I recall, Pope Pius X, XII and Abp. Levebre all endorsed the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. this seems like a non-issue for trads, in my limited experience (out of about 30 I know personally, only 1 takes issue with it).

 

[Melchior_1]

Eh, it’s the Internet.

Next time someone mentions “clown Masses” or irreverent liturgies I’ll just say “Eh, it’s the Internet”