SSPX update?

[Mrs_Sally]

I thought you would say that, all ‘academics’ make that claim. Nevertheless, wiki is a good starting point which does present information in a reasonably balanced manner (certainly sufficient for discussions on threads of this type) and does provide links to primary sources for the more erudite.

Sorry to say, but the saintliness of St Josemaria Escriva is and was, not beyond dispute. Here are a few more extracts from wiki - which will elucidate this for you:

A cannonization is an infallible decree that the person is in heaven. We don’t have to have any particular devotion to a Saint, but we cannot deny their saintliness - ie that the person is in heaven.

Cannonization is not a statement that everything a person ever wrote or said in life is infalliable or even correct. For example, St Thomas Aquinas is not always right. But again, while we may disagree with a Saint’s particular opinion or thoughts/advice on a matter, we cannot deny their heroic virtue and their place in heaven.

This thread is not about Opus Dei or St Josemaria, let’s get back on topic.

 

[Dee_S]

Your points are all too true Br JR.:curtsey:and thank you.

The title of this thread - SSPX update - has been somewhat digressed from. In concurrence I post this small prayer in reminder to us of priorities:

http://starofthesea.net/images/stories/pope-john-paul-2.jpg
Prayer of John Paul II for Life
O Mary,
bright dawn of the new world,
Mother of the living,
to you do we entrust the cause of life:
Look down, O Mother,
upon the vast numbers
of babies to be born,
of the poor whose lives are made difficult,
of men and women
who are victims of brutal violence,
of the elderly and the sick killed
by indifference or out of misguided mercy.
Grant that all who believe in your Son
may proclaim the Gospel of life
with honesty and love
to the people of our time.
Obtain for them the grace
to accept that Gospel
as a gift ever new,
the joy of celebrating it with gratitude
throughout their lives
and the courage to bear witness to it
resolutely, in order to build,
together with all people of good will,
the civilization of truth and love,
to the praise and glory of God,
the Creator and lover of life.

Pope John Paul II
Encyclical Letter "The Gospel of Life"
Given in Rome, on March 25, the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord, in the year 1995.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

 

[JReducation]

Your points are all too true Br JR.:curtsey:and thank you.

The title of this thread - SSPX update - has been somewhat digressed from. In concurrence I post this small prayer in reminder to us of priorities:

http://starofthesea.net/images/stories/pope-john-paul-2.jpg
Prayer of John Paul II for Life
O Mary,
bright dawn of the new world,
Mother of the living,
to you do we entrust the cause of life:
Look down, O Mother,
upon the vast numbers
of babies to be born,
of the poor whose lives are made difficult,
of men and women
who are victims of brutal violence,
of the elderly and the sick killed
by indifference or out of misguided mercy.
Grant that all who believe in your Son
may proclaim the Gospel of life
with honesty and love
to the people of our time.
Obtain for them the grace
to accept that Gospel
as a gift ever new,
the joy of celebrating it with gratitude
throughout their lives
and the courage to bear witness to it
resolutely, in order to build,
together with all people of good will,
the civilization of truth and love,
to the praise and glory of God,
the Creator and lover of life.

Pope John Paul II
Encyclical Letter "The Gospel of Life"
Given in Rome, on March 25, the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord, in the year 1995.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

The constitution of my community opens with this prayer

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Thanks for sharing it.

 

[Dee_S]

A canonization is an infallible decree that the person is in heaven. We don’t have to have any particular devotion to a Saint, but we cannot deny their saintliness - ie that the person is in heaven.

Canonization is not a statement that everything a person ever wrote or said in life is infallible or even correct. For example, St Thomas Aquinas is not always right. But again, while we may disagree with a Saint’s particular opinion or thoughts/advice on a matter, we cannot deny their heroic virtue and their place in heaven.

This thread is not about Opus Dei or St Josemaria, let’s get back on topic.

I am aware of all of what you say here, thank you. My remarks were in reply to his saintliness never having been in dispute, which was proven to be the case.

Of course, we must accept that he is now a canonized saint, but there are many ‘but’s’ to this particular saint’s life that cannot be closed to discussion.

 

[Dee_S]

The constitution of my community opens with this prayer

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Thanks for sharing it.

a fortuitous coincidence. I recenty posted it on the Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother group I belong to, so it is still in mind.:harp:

 

[JReducation]

I am aware of all of what you say here, thank you. My remarks were in reply to his saintliness never having been in dispute, which was proven to be the case.

Of course, we must accept that he is now a canonized saint, but there are many ‘but’s’ to this particular saint’s life that cannot be closed to discussion.

Actually, there is no choice in the matter. Once the first stage of the postulator’s job is done, it is illegal and immoral to reopen the case, even by a pope. In other words, the postulator makes his case of a decree stating that the person in question led a life of heroic Christian virtue. The Defender of the Faith (formerly the Devil’s Advocate) lays down his king. The Postulator has won.

The case then goes to a committee of six cardinals who read the findings. They make the recommendation to the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints that this person did live a life of heroic Christian virtue and should be venerated in our liturgy and in our prayer life.

The Sacred Congregation reads the findings and arrives at its own conclusion. If the Sacred Congregation feels that the person’s life is one of heroic Christian virtue, it petitions the pope to declare him Venerable.

The pope reads everyone’s conclusions and grants the Sacred Congregation’s requests.

Once this request is granted, no further discussion on the person’s qualifications for veneration is ever allowed again. Even if the person is never formerly declared a saint. The Church has spoken. The person’s life is one of heroic virtue and the person is venerable in the eyes of the Church. The Church cannot stand down from this point.

The only thing that the Church can do is

a. An aplogia to the critics of the Venerable

or

b. If the critics are Catholic, tell them to drop it.

In St. Jose Maria’s case, the position of Bl. John Paul was, “This conversation is over for all time.” No one else can do anything about this, because one pope found him to be venerable, blessed and worthy to be included in the Canon of Saints and venerate in the liturgy as one who is in heaven.

It is very reckless for anyone to take the life of a saint and decide to scrutinize his alleged faults, because of the grave danger of falling into apostasy. Once the papacy declares that the person is in heaven and MUST be venerated, she has made a statement of faith from which she cannot back down. To bring up some saint’s alleged dirty laundry can lead one to contradict an infallible statement by the Church. That would make one a heretic at best and an apostate at worse.

That’s why spiritual theologians don’t go into this stuff once the person is declared venerable. I know, because this is what I do for a living.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Dee_S]

It is very reckless for anyone to take the life of a saint and decide to scrutinize his alleged faults, because of the grave danger of falling into apostasy. Once the papacy declares that the person is in heaven and MUST be venerated, she has made a statement of faith from which she cannot back down. To bring up some saint’s alleged dirty laundry can lead one to contradict an infallible statement by the Church. That would make one a heretic at best and an apostate at worse.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I cannot agree to the grave danger you propose here. It does not seem that one would fall into ‘apostasy’ by looking into the alleged faults of a canonized saint.

There is no statement of Faith involved. The infallibility of the Pope cannot be invoked here, as it is not an ex-Cathedra statement that binds or attracts penalty. The most that one could be guilty of is ‘sacrilege’ is one were to discuss the faults of the said saint in an irreverant or disparaging way.

No heresy is possible given these parameters.

If claims of Papal Infallibility such as is implied here were to be similarly applied to the continued refusal of the SSPX to submit to Papal Authority and the Teaching Magisterium of the Church - it would be considered as ‘SSPX bashing’ - but how is it that one must pull-punches only with those errant sheep? An in-house diplomatic immunity of sorts?

Here are some extracts from an article that could begin to shed some light:

Is the canonization of a Saint a doctrine of faith or morals? Is it a teaching of the Church “to be held by the universal Church” that each and every Saint who was canonized by a Pope: led a holy life, died in a state of grace, and now dwells in Heaven forever? Is it infallibly true that no Saint canonized by a Pope has ever passed through the sufferings of Purgatory, however briefly, on their way to Heaven?

Is the canonization of a Saint a doctrine of faith or morals?
No, it is a judgment and decision, made by proper authority in the Church, that a person lived an exemplary holy life and was faithful to the teachings of Christ and His Church. Canonization is not a teaching, so it cannot fall under the teaching authority of the Church.

Is it a teaching of the Church “to be held by the universal Church” that each and every Saint who was canonized by a Pope: led a holy life, died in a state of grace, and now dwells in Heaven forever?
No. No one is obligated to believe, as an article of faith, that a particular person (someone not referred to in Tradition or Scripture) is a Saint. There is no obligation under the sacred assent due to infallible teachings of the Sacred Magisterium, nor under the ordinary assent due to the fallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium. Judgements of the Temporal Authority of the Church are, in some sense, binding on the faithful, but they are not in the realm of belief and faith, because the Temporal Authority issues rulings, not teachings.

Is it infallibly true that no Saint canonized by a Pope has ever passed through the sufferings of Purgatory on their way to Heaven?
No, a person can be a holy Saint and still have passed, however briefly, through the holy and purifying sufferings of Purgatory.

Is the teaching that canonizations fall under papal infallibility an example of an error found in the fallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium?
Yes it is, because some Bishops have taught this erroneous teaching, having been influenced by the errors of some theologians.

Papal Infallability and the Canonization of Saints
www.catholicplanet.com

 

[curlycool89]

What I did find disheartening was that those who are clamoring for Bishop Williamson have thrown money into the issue. There are many many out there who are claiming that Bishop Fellay owes them explanations and should even step down, because they (the laity) have financed the SSPX.

I have mentioned this in the past. Many people here have become annoyed with me when I have said that religious orders and other Catholic institutions are not financially accountable to the laity. The law encourages some kind of financial report, which is not the same as submitting to the demands of the laity because the laity pays the bills. The reason is right here with the SSPX.

And there is a good reason we don’t do this.

I have some friends who are former protestants who understand what it means to have a congregation that fully embraces the idea of the laity controlling the purse-strings. Pastors become nothing more then an employee of the congregation, and they are expected to tell them what they want to know.

It’s very much in the spirit of Protestantism to start throwing around the money card. It’s essentially flipping the pyramid and putting the laity on top and the priest (or bishop) on the bottom (in terms of apostolic authority).

 

[JReducation]

I cannot agree to the grave danger you propose here. It does not seem that one would fall into ‘apostasy’ by looking into the alleged faults of a canonized saint.

There is no statement of Faith involved. The infallibility of the Pope cannot be invoked here, as it is not an ex-Cathedra statement that binds or attracts penalty. The most that one could be guilty of is ‘sacrilege’ is one were to discuss the faults of the said saint in an irreverant or disparaging way.

Is the canonization of a Saint a doctrine of faith or morals? Is it a teaching of the Church “to be held by the universal Church” that each and every Saint who was canonized by a Pope: led a holy life, died in a state of grace, and now dwells in Heaven forever? Is it infallibly true that no Saint canonized by a Pope has ever passed through the sufferings of Purgatory, however briefly, on their way to Heaven?

Is the canonization of a Saint a doctrine of faith or morals?
No, it is a judgment and decision, made by proper authority in the Church, that a person lived an exemplary holy life and was faithful to the teachings of Christ and His Church. Canonization is not a teaching, so it cannot fall under the teaching authority of the Church.

Is it a teaching of the Church “to be held by the universal Church” that each and every Saint who was canonized by a Pope: led a holy life, died in a state of grace, and now dwells in Heaven forever?
No. No one is obligated to believe, as an article of faith, that a particular person (someone not referred to in Tradition or Scripture) is a Saint. There is no obligation under the sacred assent due to infallible teachings of the Sacred Magisterium, nor under the ordinary assent due to the fallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium. Judgements of the Temporal Authority of the Church are, in some sense, binding on the faithful, but they are not in the realm of belief and faith, because the Temporal Authority issues rulings, not teachings.

Snip for space

I don’t know who your source is for this, but there is grave error here. In the decree of canonization itself, the pope orders that St. X be placed on the canon of saints and venerated in the liturgy of the Church.

The law of prayer and the law of believe kick in here. We cannot to be offering the Eucharist in memory of a saint on his feast day and not believe that he’s in heaven. It does not work. If we’re celebrating the mass of Saints Peter and Paul, it’s because we believe, without a doubt that Peter and Paul are in heaven. Purgatory does not come into play here. The Church has never said that a saint has never gone to purgatory or not. We don’t know who goes to purgatory, But the Church certainly knows who is in heaven.

There is no other way for the Church to include the saints in her liturgy, if she did not believe, beyond the shadow of a doubt that the person is in heaven. This goes back to the first generation of the Church confirmed by St. John the Apostle himself in the Book of Revelation where he sees the martyrs in heaven. The early Church celebrated the Eucharist over the tombs of the martyrs as a sign of its faith that they martyrs were in heaven.
**
The dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as set forth in the profession of faith of Trent (cf. Denz. 1867) has as its correlative the power to canonize . . . . St. Thomas Aquinas says, “Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even in this the judgment of the Church is not able to err” (<Quodl.> 9:8:16).

The pope cannot by solemn definition induce errors concerning faith and morals into the teaching of the universal Church. Should the Church hold up for universal veneration a man’s life and habits that in reality led to [his] damnation, it would lead the faithful into error. It is now theologically certain that the solemn canonization of a saint is an infallible and irrevocable decision of the supreme pontiff. God speaks infallibly through his Church as it demonstrates and exemplifies its universal teaching in a particular person or judges that person’s acts to be in accord with its teaching.**
**
What is the object of this infallible judgment of the pope? Does
he define that the person canonized is in heaven or only that he
has practiced Christian virtues in an heroic degree? I have never
seen this question discussed; my own opinion is that nothing else
is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven. The
formula used in the act of canonization has nothing more than
this: “In honour of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is
a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints, and
order that his memory by devoutly and piously celebrated yearly on
the . . . day of . . . his feast.” (Ad honorem . . . beatum N.
Sanctum esse decernimus et definimus ac sanctorum catalogo
adscribimus statuentes ab ecclesiâ universali illius memoriam
quolibet anno, die ejus natali . . . piâ devotione recoli debere.)
There is no question of heroic virtue in this formula; on the
other hand, sanctity does not necessarily imply the exercise of
heroic virtue, since one who had not hitherto practised heroic
virtue would, by the one transient heroic act in which he yielded
up his life for Christ, have justly deserved to be considered a
saint. This view seems all the more certain if we reflect that all
the arguments of theologians for papal infallibility in the
canonization of saints are based on the fact that on such
occasions the popes believe and assert that the decision which
they publish is infallible (Pesch, Prael. Dogm., I, 552).**

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[R_C]

The Church has never said that the SSPX is in schism. She has never said that it is a heretical society.

That may be true. However, Pope Benedict XVI wrote in 2009:

The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. …] In order to make this clear once again: 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.

As for what our beloved St. Francis would say, I don’t know…I do know that he prostrated himself before the Holy Father, and that when the Pope even walked away, he humbly came back the following day, again prostrated on the floor before the Holy Father…and God took care of the rest.

I do not need to mention our dear St. Padre Pio, a lifetime of holy obedience to the Church amidst even terrible persecutions, and who often repeated:

The will of the Bishop is the will of God.

I’d also like to mention the writings of some Church Fathers on obedience to the Church, because these are treasures of our faith. I believe these are important in order to discern whether or not a certain fruit is poisonous, and to what degree is it poisonous.

St. Iraeneus:

Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father.

But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen away from the truth.

St. Cyprian:

If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?

St. Ambrose:

And He [Christ] affirms that they act with devilish spirit who divide the Church of God, so that he includes the heretics and schismatics of all times, to whom He denies forgiveness, for every other sin is concerned with single persons, this is a sin against all.

St. Jerome:

As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the Chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built. This is the house where alone can the paschal lamb be rightly eaten.

St. Leo the Great:

that any one who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery.

St. Maximus the Confessor:

herefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man …] but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and orthodox. He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See.

 

[JReducation]

That may be true. However, Pope Benedict XVI wrote in 2009:

As for what our beloved St. Francis would say, I don’t know…I do know that he prostrated himself before the Holy Father, and that when the Pope even walked away, he humbly came back the following day, again prostrated on the floor before the Holy Father…and God took care of the rest.

This is historically inaccurate. But that’s OK. That’s not the point. The point is that Francis himself was obedient to the Holy Father and commanded his sons and daughters to obey the Holy Father. Which I do. He also commanded us to prioritize and deal with first things first.

Right now, there are other issues more important that who attends mass at the SSPX chapel. I’m not endorsing or promoting the SSPX chapel. I’m being as realistic as Francis was when there were two issues and one was more important. He put the less important one on hold or left it to God to find someone else to deal with it.

I do not need to mention our dear St. Padre Pio, a lifetime of holy obedience to the Church amidst even terrible persecutions, and who often repeated:

Our “dear Padre Pio” is often misrepresented and misquoted or quoted out of context so often that to us Franciscans it’s become a matter of indifference. In other words, we don’t listen to what people say that Pio said or did or what people say happened or didn’t happen to Pio when our archives say very different things.

The whole notion that he was persecuted is purely a matter of outsiders not understanding the discipline and structure of the Capuchin Franciscans. Having come from that tradition, since our community was founded by several of us who were Capuchin Franciscans and who understood the constitution of 1529, we also understand that to the outsider much of the discipline in that constitution would appear to be persecution when it fact it was typical discipline for all friars.

Pio was always treated with great love and respect. The problem here is that most people do not understand the life of a mendicant, especially if he’s a priest. People assume that if a man is a priest, he’s there for the benefit of the faithful. That’s not the case as the Capuchin constitutions see it. A Capuchin who is a priest is a priest for the benefit of his community, since the community is a fraternity and the priesthood is not essential to the Capuchin charism.

When a friar, priest or not, has a situation as that of Padre Pio, it disrupts the life of the community. In which case, he is no longer serving the good of the community. The community has a moral obligation to take him out of the spotlight until the Guardian and the Provincial Minister can decide the best thing to do. This is not the same as a penalty.

Will the friar suffer? Very often he does. Every friar loves the people he serves and they love him. In a case like Pio’s who was assigned to the same house for so long, he had developed bonds with people in the area and those who came from far away to see the holy friar. Yes, they do suffer. They do not suffer, because the community makes them suffer. They suffer as anyone else who loves something and someone very much and loses it suffers.

Some friars are in a place for 25 years and then sent around to the other side of the world when they’re over 50. They have to learn a new language, eat different foods, live with friars whom they have never met, in a climate that is not familiar to them and often learn to do work that they don’t know how to do, because they’ve never done it before or they have done it with different tools.

You can ask me about this. In nine years I’ve lived on three continents and four houses. I’ve been assigned to teach at four different seminaries and now was appointed the superior general of the community, an assignment that I did not want and that takes me out of circulation.

That is the nature of a friar’s life. In the case of Pio, it was going to be even more dramatic, because of his circumstances. I was moved and people forgot me in two weeks. But I’m neither a stigmatist, miracle worker, nor a saint as Pio was. Many people have read all kinds of plots and conspiracies against Padre Pio that are not there and that living witnesses today still deny that they were ever there. The man has not been dead that long. There are middle aged friars who were young novices when Pio was around and they report that much of what is said on the internet and in books not authorized by the Capuchin Franciscans is mistaken or telling the truth, but from the point of view of a layman, not of a friar.

 

[JReducation]

As far as obedience to the Church, we all know that the Society has been disobedient, at times arrogant, and at times even antagonistic. That does not change the fact that at this point the Vatican is not too interested in the Society of St. Pius X. We have many more important issues at this time, issues where human lives, human dignity, and the salvation of souls are in danger. Attending a valid mass at the SSPX is not up there on the same rung with these other issues. That’s what I’m saying here.

We can’t do was the radical traditionalist does and take one issue and slide it up to the top rung of the ladder at the expense of other issues that are more important. Otherwise, we run the risk of doing the same thing that we condemn, zealotry.

Zealotry can be present in both traditionalists and non traditionalist. It’s not healthy or helpful in either case. The most helpful thing is to deal with what is immediately pressing. If we follow the Vatican’s lead, the Vatican is willing to put the SSPX on hold until the Society is ready and deal with these other issues. Even the CDF has moved on to other issues. Ever day, every email and communique that comes out of the CDF to the bishops and the major males religious superiors deals with something else other than the SSPX.

The SSPX had not been mentioned since July. Just a week or two ago, there was a brief statement from the CDF that the SSPX is not ready and that the CDF is willing to be patient. The same afternoon, the CDF came up with a list of other things that they want the bishops and the major superiors to attend to during the month of November. The SSPX is not on the radar. It can’t be. It’s not the only thing happening in the Church, nor the most important thing happening. It’s of many little annoyances. The Church has lived with flies in her soup for 2,000 years and will continue to survive.

Fraternally,

Br. JR FFV

 

[R_C]

I have no way to express how grateful I am for your reply. It taught me a lot and moves me to meditate more. I do not think I deserved your reply, and I sincerely apologize if anything I said was disrespectful or offensive in any way.

The whole notion that he was persecuted is purely a matter of outsiders not understanding the discipline and structure of the Capuchin Franciscans.

Please, I don’t mean to say that he suffered unjustly because of his Franciscan brothers. The persecution I speak of did not come from his brothers. I am referring, for instance, to the absurd letters of accusation regarding his “sinful life”, to the writings of that one brother who called him “an ignorant and self-mutilating psychopath”, and to the horrible sacrilege that lasted for three whole months in 1960 (defined by Osservatore Romano as “scandalous, false, and slanderous accusations”, though the evidence is there). I am referring to the attempt to convince Holy Father Pius XI to suspend him a divinis. I am also referring to the issues regarding the funds for the hospital. These things are outside the discipline of the Rule. Yet, Padre Pio responded with humbleness and obedience, to the Rule and to the Church. And that is what matters the most to me: his extraordinary obedience.

I am not trying to accuse SSPX or anyone of anything. All I am trying to do is to say that I believe obedience to the Church and to the Holy Father is crucial, and since I have been finding out of many ways to promote the Extraordinary Form, I felt this simple need to share them.

But I don’t know anything about our struggles and our priorities, and I am nobody to know these things…I just trust in the Church and pray, and give thanks to God that I have no leadership position whatsoever.

 

[Dee_S]

I don’t know who your source is for this, but there is grave error here. In the decree of canonization itself, the pope orders that St. X be placed on the canon of saints and venerated in the liturgy of the Church.

Oh my, you are so right on this score. It is a bit odd, I was too tired to pick that up. Sorry, perhaps my extracts failed to convey that the angle of interest in that particular discussion was centred on whether or not the sanctity of the canonized saint (heroic virtue) was infallibly declared so that they did not go to purgatory for venial faults - there is certainly no dispute as to the acceptance of Papal authority - just whether the canonization proves that they went directly to heaven.:heaven:
**

The dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as set forth in the profession of faith of Trent (cf. Denz. 1867) has as its correlative the power to canonize . . . . St. Thomas Aquinas says, “Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even in this the judgment of the Church is not able to err”

(<Quodl.> 9:8:16).**
In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: “Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.” These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief.

Thank you for your patience

 

[Faithdancer]

Interesting comparison- at the EF Mass I attended today (yes, at an SSPX Chapel) the priest gave a homily on how to include more time for *Catholic *prayer, including the Rosary, in one’s daily life. At the OF Mass I attended this afternoon- to ensure that my Sunday obligation is met- the priest extolled the virtues of engaging in Zen meditation.

I’m not saying that all or most or even more than a few priests who only celebrate the OF Mass would recommend Zen meditation. However, I think its safe to say that absolutely 0% of priests who prefer celebrating the EF Mass- including the SSPX priests- would ever condone Zen meditation.

 

[JReducation]

I have no way to express how grateful I am for your reply. It taught me a lot and moves me to meditate more. I do not think I deserved your reply, and I sincerely apologize if anything I said was disrespectful or offensive in any way.

Please, I don’t mean to say that he suffered unjustly because of his Franciscan brothers. The persecution I speak of did not come from his brothers. I am referring, for instance, to the absurd letters of accusation regarding his “sinful life”, to the writings of that one brother who called him “an ignorant and self-mutilating psychopath”, and to the horrible sacrilege that lasted for three whole months in 1960 (defined by Osservatore Romano as “scandalous, false, and slanderous accusations”, though the evidence is there). I am referring to the attempt to convince Holy Father Pius XI to suspend him a divinis. I am also referring to the issues regarding the funds for the hospital. These things are outside the discipline of the Rule. Yet, Padre Pio responded with humbleness and obedience, to the Rule and to the Church. And that is what matters the most to me: his extraordinary obedience.

I am not trying to accuse SSPX or anyone of anything. All I am trying to do is to say that I believe obedience to the Church and to the Holy Father is crucial, and since I have been finding out of many ways to promote the Extraordinary Form, I felt this simple need to share them.

But I don’t know anything about our struggles and our priorities, and I am nobody to know these things…I just trust in the Church and pray, and give thanks to God that I have no leadership position whatsoever.

People said horrible things about this poor man. Some were confreres or other clergy. There were confreres who thought he was nuts. To be honest, when someone is eating at a table, makes everyone get up so that he can get out of his place and go to the refectory door to strike up a conversation with someone who’s not there, you begin to wonder.

If you have ever been in a Franciscan house, we sit around the wall with a big space in the center. If you have to get up from the table and you’re at the center, everyone has to get up to let you pass. One of the most famous anecdotes about Pio was when he asked the friars to be excused for a second. The house at San Giovanni was the house of formation as well as a shrine. Houses of formation generally have anywhere up to 50 friars or more. The one where I was formed had 57.

The entire side of the room got up to allow Pio to pass. They probably thought that he had to go to the bathroom or some such thing. Instead, he went to the refectory door and struck up a conversation with someone who was not there. This caught everyone’s attention. When he came back to the table, everyone had to get up again to let him pass back to his place.

When asked what that was about, he said, “Oh those were just a few souls who came to thank me for releasing them from Purgatory.”

OK, now tell me what you would think of someone who has disrupted your dinner, is talking to thin air and then says that poor souls have come back to say “Thank you?” That’s not a normal occurrence. Of course there were going to be some friars who thought that Pio had lost it.

Then there were doctors who said that his wounds were self-imposed, that only confirmed the thinking of the friars who saw him speaking to thin air.

There were so many other things happening that the superior of the house decided to put him on the bench until he could ask the regional superior what to do, because all of this was upsetting the order of the house. Then there was more in the press and with the hospital money, etc. Now that I’m a superior, I will for those superiors who had to keep a house of 50 running like clockwork when you had one person who did not quite fit the mold.

 

[JReducation]

Oh my, you are so right on this score. It is a bit odd, I was too tired to pick that up. Sorry, perhaps my extracts failed to convey that the angle of interest in that particular discussion was centred on whether or not the sanctity of the canonized saint (heroic virtue) was infallibly declared so that they did not go to purgatory for venial faults - there is certainly no dispute as to the acceptance of Papal authority - just whether the canonization proves that they went directly to heaven.:heaven:

---

In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: “Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.” These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief.

Thank you for your patience

There is a long list of doctors and popes who support that infallibility of canonization as more than just a pious assent, but who say that it is an assent of faith that is owed to the Holy Father, because he cannot order the Church to venerate that which is not venerable.

Interesting comparison- at the EF Mass I attended today (yes, at an SSPX Chapel) the priest gave a homily on how to include more time for *Catholic *prayer, including the Rosary, in one’s daily life. At the OF Mass I attended this afternoon- to ensure that my Sunday obligation is met- the priest extolled the virtues of engaging in Zen meditation.

That one has lost me. Today’s readings were about the the two great commandments, at least in our calendar. I don’t see the connection with praying the Rosary or with Zen. The theme was the fulfillment of the Covenant by Christ. Christ uses the quote from Deuteronomy to create a link between the Torah and the new covenant.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Faithdancer]

There is a long list of doctors and popes who support that infallibility of canonization as more than just a pious assent, but who say that it is an assent of faith that is owed to the Holy Father, because he cannot order the Church to venerate that which is not venerable.

That one has lost me. Today’s readings were about the the two great commandments, at least in our calendar. I don’t see the connection with praying the Rosary or with Zen. The theme was the fulfillment of the Covenant by Christ. Christ uses the quote from Deuteronomy to create a link between the Torah and the new covenant.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Well I just deleted the post because I didn’t want to seem uncharitable. But apparently you had already responded to it. Anyway I believe the EF Mass homily emphasis on including more Catholic prayer in one’s daily life was a response to the reading from Mark, vis-a-vis loving God with all our heart, all our mind, etc- one aspect of that love being prayerful devotion. Perhaps the promotion of Zen meditation in the later Mass I attended was in response to the same reading, though I’m really not sure now because I was rather distressed to hear it and was distracted after I did hear it. Of course, for those who think it is perfectly acceptable to meld Eastern religious practices with Catholicism, I must seem old fashioned.

 

[Faithdancer]

btw I agree that SSPX may not be the most urgent matter facing the Magisterium today…in fact I can totally agree that moral relativism and heterodoxy among Catholics who resist Church teachings on matters such as abortion and same sex “marriage” are more urgent and pressing issues than a group of some paltry half a million Catholics who will eventually be completely reintegrated into the Roman Catholic Church…hopefully as Personal Prelature #2.

That being said, the topic of this thread is still SSPX, and updates thereto. The expulsion of Bishop Williamson is arguably the most interesting recent update…if anyone cares to comment (charitably) on that.

 

[R_C]

@JREducation

I must admit that I had never considered this perspective, and it must have been indeed very peculiar for his brothers…and challenging for his superiors.

I just love to keep in mind his example of obedience (which is not new or unique, just, I guess, more recent and one to which many lay faithful can relate to) because today I often see people easily distancing themselves from the Church and passing judgment on priests and bishops…I was one of them until a few years ago…and the more I read the writings of our saints, the more I realize that a distinct trait was their obedience to the Church…it has become so common and so easy (and I know, because I was one of them) to criticize the Church…and it is very difficult to see things in the right perspective, to acquire a healthy balance and place all things according to their true priority and importance.

Thank you so much for your kind and patient reply. I am still trying to make sense in my mind of all the things I am going through and experiencing…it is very, very difficult, at times…right now, it’s mostly a strong desire for the unity of the Church…then again, I’ve learned by experience that whenever I feel overwhelmed by thoughts, I simply have to “let go” of them all, place everything in God’s hands, and take a deep breath.

I would like to mention that even through this remote exchange of posts I have been literally taken aback by a strong urge to become more humble, and even though I did not intend to be neither prideful nor offensive, I feel such great shame…I feel like a child who started to speak amidst adults, interrupting them, as if his words, which he read or heard from someone, would be meaningful, forgetting that they lose their significance when they are uttered by a child. I feel like you were fully entitled to and could have easily embarrassed me, yet chose to patiently and extensively reply, not just to me, of course, but also to me.