SSPX update?

[RogerDeCourcy]

Zzzzz. Not only the SSPX are disturbed by the state of the R. C. church post-Vatican II.

Whatever your interpretation of the V2 documents (and the fact that they, as legal documents, need 50 years of interpretation, is a problem in itself), they have been used to excuse some pretty ropey masses and ideas. Did we ever think we’d see dancing at mass with CITH? It looked like we were going to make a rapprochment with Protestantism by the expedient of dumping the awkward parts of Catholicism. I wonder how many nominal Catholics today would have been described by our forebears as protestants, simply because of what they believe and do?

What would be great would be a simple bald statement like John Paul II made about women’s ordination. Even that gets ‘interpreted’ away but the noise is dying down, I think.

 

[Melchior_1]

I’m not a prophet, but if I were a betting man, I’d bet that God is going to make each one of them come back on their own. There will be no exodus as a group.

The Chair of Peter will ask each one individually, “Who do you say that I am?” and each will have to examine himself. Each individual will have to search himself and either pick up his Cross and follow Christ unreservedly or “Return to their former ways” as in John 6.

I pray that each will recognize grace and cooperate with it, but I truly think God wants each man to decide on his own in the depths of his heart. Maybe I’m guilty of speculation, but at the end of the day I think it is going to be an intensely personal decision for each and every member of the SSPX.

-Tim-

As always, well said Timothy. Is there anything that John 6 can’t answer?

 

[Melchior_1]

Whatever your interpretation of the V2 documents (and the fact that they, as legal documents, need 50 years of interpretation, is a problem in itself),

Using this logic; any Council after these first one in Acts was a bad Council. Because if a Council had to be formed to explain things that another one didn’t cover or already covered, then it obviously failed.

 

[curlycool89]

(this was quoted by Mrs Sally, post 15)

Following on that meeting, Bishop Fellay sent a letter to the Pope, asking him whether these additional requirements were wished for by His Holiness, or that they were his co-workers’s demands. The Pope assured Bishop Fellay that he really wishes these requirements to be fulfilled.

Well, that at least puts to bed one rumour. It was indeed the Pope who made the changes, not some secret backroom change that people (even people here) were accusing Cardinal Leveda of orchestrating.

 

[JReducation]

(this was quoted by Mrs Sally, post 15)

Well, that at least puts to bed one rumour. It was indeed the Pope who made the changes, not some secret backroom change that people (even people here) were accusing Cardinal Leveda of orchestrating.

I’m sorry, but here is the silly part of all of this conspiracy theory stuff. Let’s say that Cardinal Levada added to the document. The Cardinal was authorized by the Pontiff to broker this dialogue. Therefore, he had the authority to speak for the Holy Father. The prefects always have the authority to speak for the Holy Father when they speak on matters within their competency or matters assigned to them. That’s only the first part.

The second part, as I had said here many months ago, the process by which this Preamble was delivered was tamper proof.

The CDF writes the Preamble.

The Preamble is reviewed by Msgr. Gänswein, nothing ever gets to the pope before he approves it. He decides if it meets the pope’s approval.

Msgr. gives it to the pope who can choose to read it or simply sign it, because Msgr has already read it and briefed him on what it says.

Once it is signed and sealed, the folder is closed and sealed again with the Fisherman’s Ring.

That folder is slipped into another envelop which is also sealed and signed by Msgr. Gänswein and delivered to the CDF.

The CDF delivers it to the SSPX.

If there are any changes the Holy Father knows about them. He is informed of them and he has a chance to read them with his own eyes. If he makes changes, the document is sent back to the CDF for their review and comes back to the Apostolic Palace and goes through the same review process to ensure that it says what the Holy Father wants it to say.

I know nothing about this exchange between the Holy Father and Bishop Fellay. However, we do know that Archbishop DiNoia and Archbishop Mueller, both said that the changes to the Preamble were made by Pope Benedict himself and it was Pope Benedict who said that the entire Council and all of its documents must be accepted. Other theologians were being more moderate. They were talking about a hierarchy of authority in the documents. The pope does not admit nor deny any such hierarchy. If he believes that there is, he’s not saying so. He’s saying that it’s a package that the Catholic Church must accept as being free of error.

Rumor has it that this is why he brought in a Dominican Friar to fill in the position of VP which was vacant. He did not create this position. It always existed. But the Dominicans have been known for their ability to adopt to the Council documents without conflict, as Archbishop DiNoia himself said. This gives him an edge in helping the Traditionalists, if they want his help.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

Whatever your interpretation of the V2 documents (and the fact that they, as legal documents, need 50 years of interpretation, is a problem in itself), they have been used to excuse some pretty ropey masses and ideas.

There have always been problems with abuses in prior generations. Read the Acts of the apostles----problems in the Church have always been with us. What’s more, Sacred Scripture itself has always been misinterpreted too; just read what Peter says in 2 Peter 3:16 about how many twist Paul’s writings.

The Vatican II documents are brilliant and beautiful. The problem is that most people who attack Vatican II have never read nor studied the documents. Instead they blame the cultural revolutions and the agendas of people within the Church on Vatican II.

The first Protestants were all Catholics who thought they knew better than the Church. Were there abuses in the Church in the 16th century? Yes, of course. And the Council of Trent took about 50 years for it to reverberate and transform a Church which was laced with abuses and scandals among the clergy and ignorance among the laity.

Read what St. Teresa of Avila had to face with laxity which was widespread in religious orders which led her to reform the Carmelite Order and the foundation of seventeen monasteries. Her work was met with opposition from members inside the Church, but what she didn’t do is create schism through disobedience, but rather worked with the blessing of the pope.

 

[ServusMariae90]

I know nothing about this exchange between the Holy Father and Bishop Fellay. However, we do know that Archbishop DiNoia and Archbishop Mueller, both said that the changes to the Preamble were made by Pope Benedict himself and it was Pope Benedict who said that the entire Council and all of its documents must be accepted. Other theologians were being more moderate. They were talking about a hierarchy of authority in the documents. The pope does not admit nor deny any such hierarchy. If he believes that there is, he’s not saying so. He’s saying that it’s a package that the Catholic Church must accept as being free of error.

While I agree that the Holy Father probably knew about this, I find the actions of the Holy Office inconsistent with what has happened in agreements with other traditional organizations. The Institut du Bon Pasteur (Institute of the Good Shepherd) is allowed to respectfully and constructively criticize the documents of Vatican II as long as they recognize that it is for the Holy See to give an authoritative interpretation (e.g. the clarification of subsitit in). Also, years ago Fr. Feeney and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary were reconciled with the Church without abandoning their position on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. Another group of followers of Father Feeney were regularized, again without having to recant their position. On a more individual basis, I have heard priests from the Fraternity of Saint Peter give concrete conditions by which a faithful Catholic may, while having a respect for the documents in question, suspend assent to the authentic Magisterium (i.e. non-definitive teachings). So it seems, if the report of the requirement of unconditional acceptance of everything within the Council is true, that the Holy Office is holding the Society of Saint Pius X to a different standard than what it has done for various other organizations. Together with others, I pray for the regularization of the Society of Saint Pius X. They do so much good.

 

[ProVobis]

The problem with SSPX is that it was schismatic (disobedient) from the start,

The FSSPX were legitimately started in 1970. The suspensions began in 1975.

 

[JReducation]

While I agree that the Holy Father probably knew about this, I find the actions of the Holy Office inconsistent with what has happened in agreements with other traditional organizations. The Institut du Bon Pasteur (Institute of the Good Shepherd) is allowed to respectfully and constructively criticize the documents of Vatican II as long as they recognize that it is for the Holy See to give an authoritative interpretation (e.g. the clarification of subsitit in). Also, years ago Fr. Feeney and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary were reconciled with the Church without abandoning their position on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. Another group of followers of Father Feeney were regularized, again without having to recant their position. On a more individual basis, I have heard priests from the Fraternity of Saint Peter give concrete conditions by which a faithful Catholic may, while having a respect for the documents in question, suspend assent to the authentic Magisterium (i.e. non-definitive teachings). So it seems, if the report of the requirement of unconditional acceptance of everything within the Council is true, that the Holy Office is holding the Society of Saint Pius X to a different standard than what it has done for various other organizations. Together with others, I pray for the regularization of the Society of Saint Pius X. They do so much good.

I don’t know the exact wording that others used to disagree with points in the documents, but the problem with the SSPX is that they have used the word “error”. The pope said that to say that there is error in the documents is sophistry. They have to back down on that.

The issue of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire is not a Council issue. That does not play any part here. All that the Church has done is expand and clarify what we have always believed.

The FSSP is in a much better position than the SSPX. The FSSP is an “in-house” institute as would be Opus Dei, Maryknoll, Missionhurst or Vicentians. These too are societies of Apostolic Life, but they were founded in the Church and remain in full communion with the Church. They do not have to prove their fidelity to the Council or to the Magisterium of the last five popes. The SSPX has said so many things over the years that the Holy Father is going to hold its feet over the fire and it will have to prove its fidelity not only to the Magisterium up to the Council, but up to today. For example, there is one point that Bishop DiNoia mentioned in one of his letters to different people, which concerns him. If one goes to an SSPX site or an SSPX friendly site, book, newspaper, etc, one never finds any of the documents from the Council, none of the encyclicals by John Paul II and none by Benedict XVI. This is problematic. Because it demonstrates a broader dissent than this or that point in the Council Documents.

For example, the FSSP uses Evangelium Vitae as its primary source for teaching on the life issues. It uses Vita Consecrata as its primary source to guide young men and women who believe that they may have a vocation to the religious life. Why? Because these documents, while teaching what has always been taught, say it in the language that the Holy See wants it said today. There is the fidelity. For example, if the Holy See prefers the word “liturgy” over the word “mass” even though both would be correct, then we say “liturgy.”

Thee Holy Father is not just taking issue with some of the positions of the SSPX on the documents, but he seems to be taking issue with the way that the SSPX speaks to him. It seems to speak to him in a manner that suggests that it is he who has to come around and not them. Like a good administrator, he’s going to demand assent to the documents and submission to his authority, which does not have to be infallible to be valid.

I can understand this last point, being a superior. I’m not infallible. However, St. Francis demands that the brothers submit to him, even after his death and submit to his successors, even if the successors are mistaken, as long they don’t command against the Commandments or against Canon Law. This is another area of agreement that the SSPX has to come to terms with.

Even if the Holy Father came out saying what other theologians have said, “There are some documents that are more authoritative than others,” there is no such thing as one pope being more authoritative than another. You can’t throw in Pope Benedict’s face that Pope Leo XIII said A,B, and C. Pope Leo XIII is not more authoritative than Pope Benedict XVI and nothing that he said, except that which is dogma, is binding on Pope Benedict.

I can see where they have to assent to the documents being error free, even if they say that they are not clear and they have to assent to the fact that the reigning pope is not bound by previous popes and if he chooses to deviate from what a previous pope said or demanded, he has the right to do so and the faithful must comply.

My guess is that this is the greater problem. From what SSPX priests are saying and some SSPX lay people, it seems that they keep throwing out there what this pope said and that pope said as if it were binding on the the current pope. We have to remember that only that which is divinely revealed is binding on the current pope. Everything else, either from a council or an encyclical or a mandate from a previous pope is up to the current pope’s discretion as to how to apply it or whether to use it at all. He can dismiss it on the grounds that it’s not applicable, which is not the same as saying that it was in error.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

Even if the Holy Father came out saying what other theologians have said, “There are some documents that are more authoritative than others,” there is no such thing as one pope being more authoritative than another. You can’t throw in Pope Benedict’s face that Pope Leo XIII said A,B, and C. Pope Leo XIII is not more authoritative than Pope Benedict XVI and nothing that he said, except that which is dogma, is binding on Pope Benedict.

I’m not defending the FSSPX on this, and while I agree with you, Br. JR, on the “no one pope is more authoritative than another” principle, nevertheless didn’t something in the Vatican II documents say something to the effect that what multiple popes have said carries more weight than any one Pope? I don’t have any specific examples but just asking in general. I know you like to discuss such things.

 

[ServusMariae90]

The pope said that to say that there is error in the documents is sophistry.

The FSSP is in a much better position than the SSPX. The FSSP is an “in-house” institute as would be Opus Dei, Maryknoll, Missionhurst or Vicentians. These too are societies of Apostolic Life, but they were founded in the Church and remain in full communion with the Church. They do not have to prove their fidelity to the Council or to the Magisterium of the last five popes. The SSPX has said so many things over the years that the Holy Father is going to hold its feet over the fire and it will have to prove its fidelity not only to the Magisterium up to the Council, but up to today. For example, there is one point that Bishop DiNoia mentioned in one of his letters to different people, which concerns him. If one goes to an SSPX site or an SSPX friendly site, book, newspaper, etc, one never finds any of the documents from the Council, none of the encyclicals by John Paul II and none by Benedict XVI. This is problematic. Because it demonstrates a broader dissent than this or that point in the Council Documents.

For example, the FSSP uses Evangelium Vitae as its primary source for teaching on the life issues. It uses Vita Consecrata as its primary source to guide young men and women who believe that they may have a vocation to the religious life. Why? Because these documents, while teaching what has always been taught, say it in the language that the Holy See wants it said today. There is the fidelity. For example, if the Holy See prefers the word “liturgy” over the word “mass” even though both would be correct, then we say “liturgy.”

Thank you very much for your detailed response. I do agree that the SSPX has been rather disrespectful of the magisterium and that is probably the primary concern of the Holy See. However, in regard to the Institut du Bon Pasteur, in reading some of what they have written they use the word inconsistency in regards to Vatican II and the post-Conciliar Magisterium. For example, they would refer to inconsistencies in Dignitatis Humanae. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos has told them that “constructive criticism is a great service to render to the Church” in regard to finding inconstancies (see this blog post by one of the institute’s priests - - it is in Italian, but Google Translate gives a decent translation)

I used the example of Fr. Feeney because both his situation and that of the SSPX are similar in that they involved withholding assent to teachings of the current magisterium. Fr. Zuhlsdorf at wdtprs.com has spoken about the similarities before.

In regards to the terminology used by various traditional institutes, that seems largely up to the individual priest and institute. I know that the FSSP does not use the Catechism of the Catholic Church in their seminary (at least in the United States), it uses the Roman Catechism which would use some older terms. Also, through personal experience with the FSSP, while they may reference recent documents, the will always use more traditional terms (e.g. instead of religious liberty, they will use toleration; instead of anointing of the sick, they use extreme unction) mostly for the part of clarity. Putting aside any issues regarding content (because benefit of the doubt is to be always given to magisterial documents in regards to their orthodoxy), post-conciliar documents have been marked with a certain unclarity, which is not found in pre-conciliar documents (e.g. Quanta Cura vs. Dignitatis Humanae). While it is not up to me to determine whether these two documents are consistent with each other (I leave that up to theologians and the Holy See), ambiguity has caused great confusion about the doctrinal continuity between the two statements (see Monsignor Gherardini’s book on Vatican II for some more information). There is no obligation by priests to use current theological terminology by priests. If there is, then all of my encounters with members of traditional communities in union with the Holy See would indicate that they are being disobedient in that regard.

In regards to the comment calling the ability to question Vatican II “sophistry,” that was not made by the Holy Father. It was Archbishop DiNoia. Recently, Cardinal Brandmuller said that certain documents of Vatican II are not-binding and that they are open for discussion. Also, Monsignor Gherardini (a canon of St. Peter’s Basilica) wrote a book a few years ago about the inconsistencies of Vatican II.

While certainly some websites associated with the Society of Saint Pius X have many articles and opinion pieces on them, they are not necessarily the opinion of the SSPX. Official opinions are on dici.org, the official news site for the Society.

While certainly polemics should be avoided, respectful discussion is, at least in certain circumstances, permitted. Again, according to various theology manuals, assent may be suspended,in certain circumstances, with regard to non-definative teachings. These two sermons by Fr. Ripperger, FSSP are helpful: “Mark of Apostolicity and Infallibilty” and “Mark of Apostolicity and the Ordinary Magisterium”. I believe it is in the second sermon where Father discusses the criteria for withholding assent.

 

[JReducation]

I’m not defending the FSSPX on this, and while I agree with you, Br. JR, on the “no one pope is more authoritative than another” principle, nevertheless didn’t something in the Vatican II documents say something to the effect that what multiple popes have said carries more weight than any one Pope?

They’re talking about interpretation of doctrine, not general rules of discipline. For example, the Syllabus of Errors or the Oath Against Modernism are disciplinary actions of specific popes. Their successors are free to use them or lay them aside. If they choose to lay them aside, the rest of us have to do the same.

Take something like the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. By the time these were declared dogmas, they had been taught by the Magisterium of many generations of popes. It’s a doctrinal point. One pope could not come around and say that it was error or that it was no longer practical. There were two choices, a) leave things as they were or b) declare them dogma and close the discussion.

However, in regard to the Institut du Bon Pasteur, in reading some of what they have written they use the word inconsistency in regards to Vatican II and the post-Conciliar Magisterium.

While certainly some websites associated with the Society of Saint Pius X have many articles and opinion pieces on them, they are not necessarily the opinion of the SSPX. Official opinions are on dici.org, the official news site for the Society.

While certainly polemics should be avoided, respectful discussion is, at least in certain circumstances, permitted. Again, according to various theology manuals, assent may be suspended,in certain circumstances, with regard to non-definative teachings. These two sermons by Fr. Ripperger, FSSP are helpful: “Mark of Apostolicity and Infallibilty” and “Mark of Apostolicity and the Ordinary Magisterium”. I believe it is in the second sermon where Father discusses the criteria for withholding assent.

I don’t think that the terminology is as important to the Holy See as is the authority of the pope. At the end of the day, whether one calls it Extreme Unction or Anointing of the Sick, the Church wants everyone to comply with the rules that govern the sacrament. In the past, this particular sacrament was not administered unless a person was close to death. The new regulations say that the sacrament must be administered to those who are seriously sick and it can be repeated every six months. If the FSSP said that it would only administer the sacrament when there is evidence that death is near, then the Holy See would have major problems. Then it becomes an issue of authority. The FSSP have no authority to restrict what the Church has opened up. And individual priest can probably get away with saying that he will not administer it, but not an entire institute.

As to the CCC, the reason that it’s not used by the FSSP in its seminary is because it was not written as textbook for the study of theology. If we read the decree, the CCC must be used as the resource for the writing of catechism. That is the intent of the publication. There are no prescribed books for the degrees in theology, ministry or divinity. It all depends on your major.

There is another issue here, which is one that St. Boniface faced, addressed head on and no pope has ever said anything to the contrary. He said that the pope can make law for the universal Church, for an individual or for a sector. The pope can make demands on one group and not on anyone else. We have seen this in reverse. When St. Ignatius founded the Jesuits, there were no such creatures as Clerks Regular, which is what the Jesuits are today. There were monks and friars. Well, monks and friars have the privilege of making solemn vows. They also have the right of exemption from the authority of everyone and anyone who is not the pope, as individuals and as a community.

However, monks and friars have obligations: obedience to the pope, they may never dissent even in prudential matters, they must live and pray in community, and must observe the liturgical laws of their community and of the Church.

St. Ignatius bargained for getting his Society the same privileges as the monks and friars, but also getting permission not to be bound by any of the obligations that come with solemn vows. The Jesuits are exception to almost every law that governs religious life, but have the privilege of having their vows recognized as the most solemn form of commitment in the life of the Church, say more solemn than a Redemptorist.

This is a perfect example of the pope applying the law differently for one group. No one has ever questioned the privileges of the Jesuits, except laymen, because most laymen don’t know what solemn vows are or what the Right of Exemption means. Most laymen would expect that the Right of Exemption has the same boundaries for everyone. “You’re exempt from this, but not from that.” That’s not the case in the Church. Because St. Boniface fixed it so that the pope can do this and no other pope has changed this policy. No one can challenge it, not with any authority.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[1AugustSon7]

About New Terms…

The Church has always been happy to use neologisms to express the same ideas or aspects of an idea. For example, we hardly here of regeneration, **the regenerate **or **the generate **anymore, but these terms were frequently used by the Church Fathers for baptism, the baptised and the unbaptised respectively. It highlights an aspect of the doctrine of baptism. There are a plethora of terms like this.

I can understand apprehension at the use of new terms: there is fear that perhaps they express something different or novel from the old term, as opposed to emphasising or highlighting an aspect.

Notwithstanding, it is clear that since Vatican II the Church has had a preference for terms that are used or found in the scriptures: The **People of God **(Heb. 4:9: “There remaineth therefore a day of rest for the people of God”), for instance; liturgy (as opposed to Mass), etc. Protestants familiar with the original Greek of the scriptures should recognise the root of liturgy: the Church is associating (quite rightly) this term found in the scriptures with the practice and development of the Mass. Likewise with the word Eucharist. This roots Catholicism immediately in the bible: the Church is not letting go of the bible or her roots in it. Our present Holy Father, if I recall correctly, is a scripture scholar: it makes sense for him to emphasize these terms. From an apologetics perspective, it makes defending Catholicism a lot easier.

Another term we didn’t hear too often before Vatican II is Paschal Mystery, which roots the Mass again directly in the bible, both old and new testaments (cf. 1 Cor 5:7, Ex. 12:3-13). It comprises the idea of Christ as our Passover Lamb. When linked to the institution of the Old Covenant Passover it makes obvious the dramatic import of Our Lord’s words at the institution of the Mass (and the priesthood necessarily) at the Last Supper (compare Luke 22:19, and like verses in the NT, with Ex. 12:14).

New terms, therefore, can help better express more clearly the same old ideas.

 

[Melchior_1]

About New Terms…

The Church has always been happy to use neologisms to express the same ideas or aspects of an idea. For example, we hardly here of regeneration, **the regenerate **or **the generate **anymore, but these terms were frequently used by the Church Fathers for baptism, the baptised and the unbaptised respectively. It highlights an aspect of the doctrine of baptism. There are a plethora of terms like this.

I can understand apprehension at the use of new terms: there is fear that perhaps they express something different or novel from the old term, as opposed to emphasising or highlighting an aspect.

Notwithstanding, it is clear that since Vatican II the Church has had a preference for terms that are used or found in the scriptures: The **People of God **(Heb. 4:9: “There remaineth therefore a day of rest for the people of God”), for instance; liturgy (as opposed to Mass), etc. Protestants familiar with the original Greek of the scriptures should recognise the root of liturgy: the Church is associating (quite rightly) this term found in the scriptures with the practice and development of the Mass. Likewise with the word Eucharist. This roots Catholicism immediately in the bible: the Church is not letting go of the bible or her roots in it. Our present Holy Father, if I recall correctly, is a scripture scholar: it makes sense for him to emphasize these terms. From an apologetics perspective, it makes defending Catholicism a lot easier.

Another term we didn’t hear too often before Vatican II is Paschal Mystery, which roots the Mass again directly in the bible, both old and new testaments (cf. 1 Cor 5:7, Ex. 12:3-13). It comprises the idea of Christ as our Passover Lamb. When linked to the institution of the Old Covenant Passover it makes obvious the dramatic import of Our Lord’s words at the institution of the Mass (and the priesthood necessarily) at the Last Supper (compare Luke 22:19, and like verses in the NT, with Ex. 12:14).

New terms, therefore, can help better express more clearly the same old ideas.

Outstanding post, August. Very good observations!

 

[Lormar]

They’re talking about interpretation of doctrine, not general rules of discipline. For example, the Syllabus of Errors or the Oath Against Modernism are disciplinary actions of specific popes. Their successors are free to use them or lay them aside. If they choose to lay them aside, the rest of us have to do the same.

Take something like the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. By the time these were declared dogmas, they had been taught by the Magisterium of many generations of popes. It’s a doctrinal point. One pope could not come around and say that it was error or that it was no longer practical. There were two choices, a) leave things as they were or b) declare them dogma and close the discussion.

I don’t think that the terminology is as important to the Holy See as is the authority of the pope. At the end of the day, whether one calls it Extreme Unction or Anointing of the Sick, the Church wants everyone to comply with the rules that govern the sacrament. In the past, this particular sacrament was not administered unless a person was close to death. The new regulations say that the sacrament must be administered to those who are seriously sick and it can be repeated every six months. If the FSSP said that it would only administer the sacrament when there is evidence that death is near, then the Holy See would have major problems. Then it becomes an issue of authority. The FSSP have no authority to restrict what the Church has opened up. And individual priest can probably get away with saying that he will not administer it, but not an entire institute.

As to the CCC, the reason that it’s not used by the FSSP in its seminary is because it was not written as textbook for the study of theology. If we read the decree, the CCC must be used as the resource for the writing of catechism. That is the intent of the publication. There are no prescribed books for the degrees in theology, ministry or divinity. It all depends on your major.

There is another issue here, which is one that St. Boniface faced, addressed head on and no pope has ever said anything to the contrary. He said that the pope can make law for the universal Church, for an individual or for a sector. The pope can make demands on one group and not on anyone else. We have seen this in reverse. When St. Ignatius founded the Jesuits, there were no such creatures as Clerks Regular, which is what the Jesuits are today. There were monks and friars. Well, monks and friars have the privilege of making solemn vows. They also have the right of exemption from the authority of everyone and anyone who is not the pope, as individuals and as a community.

However, monks and friars have obligations: obedience to the pope, they may never dissent even in prudential matters, they must live and pray in community, and must observe the liturgical laws of their community and of the Church.

St. Ignatius bargained for getting his Society the same privileges as the monks and friars, but also getting permission not to be bound by any of the obligations that come with solemn vows. The Jesuits are exception to almost every law that governs religious life, but have the privilege of having their vows recognized as the most solemn form of commitment in the life of the Church, say more solemn than a Redemptorist.

This is a perfect example of the pope applying the law differently for one group. No one has ever questioned the privileges of the Jesuits, except laymen, because most laymen don’t know what solemn vows are or what the Right of Exemption means. Most laymen would expect that the Right of Exemption has the same boundaries for everyone. “You’re exempt from this, but not from that.” That’s not the case in the Church. Because St. Boniface fixed it so that the pope can do this and no other pope has changed this policy. No one can challenge it, not with any authority.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Brother, I wish I had your understanding and knowledge of these things. My mind wouldn’t be in the confused state it is in if I did.

 

[ServusMariae90]

I don’t think that the terminology is as important to the Holy See as is the authority of the pope. At the end of the day, whether one calls it Extreme Unction or Anointing of the Sick, the Church wants everyone to comply with the rules that govern the sacrament. In the past, this particular sacrament was not administered unless a person was close to death. The new regulations say that the sacrament must be administered to those who are seriously sick and it can be repeated every six months. If the FSSP said that it would only administer the sacrament when there is evidence that death is near, then the Holy See would have major problems. Then it becomes an issue of authority. The FSSP have no authority to restrict what the Church has opened up. And individual priest can probably get away with saying that he will not administer it, but not an entire institute.

An English translation of the Rituale Romanum (the English translation is from 1964 which is during the Council, so it employs Anointing of the Sick for Extreme Unction) says:

8. Anointing of the sick can be given only to one of the faithful–one who has attained the age of reason and who is in danger of death by reason of illness or old age. The sacrament may not be given more than once during the same illness, unless after receiving the sacrament, the sick person has recovered from the danger and then has a critical relapse.

Traditional communities follow the 1983 Code of Canon Law, except when it contradicts the liturgical law in force in 1962:

28. Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.

Therefore, since the Roman Ritual itself states when the sacrament is to be administered, when using the traditional books for Extreme Unction/Anointing of the Sick those rules are to be followed as per Universae Ecclesiae.

 

[JReducation]

An English translation of the Rituale Romanum (the English translation is from 1964 which is during the Council, so it employs Anointing of the Sick for Extreme Unction) says:

Traditional communities follow the 1983 Code of Canon Law, except when it contradicts the liturgical law in force in 1962:

Therefore, since the Roman Ritual itself states when the sacrament is to be administered, when using the traditional books for Extreme Unction/Anointing of the Sick those rules are to be followed as per Universae Ecclesiae.

You’re missing my point. My point is that the dialogue between the SSPX and the Vatican is not about terms, but about authority. I used the example of the sacrament, but I could have used any example and it will works.

Even using this example, if the Vatican says that the rule is now different and that the Canon of 1983 trumps the liturgical law of 1962, except in A, B and C, the Vatican has the right to do so and the rest of us have the obligation to comply That’s the issue at hand here.

The concern seems to be not with the books of this year or that year. The concern seems to be whether or not the SSPX and the laity who follow them will comply with the authority of the pope, even if he changes the road map. At the end of the day, it makes no sense to give the bishops and priests of the SSPX full canonical rights if they do not accept that the Pontiff can demand, enforce and abrogate anything he wants that is outside of divine revelation.

I don’t foresee a sane Pontiff going wild and throwing things out the window just because he can. But we have to accept that he can if he wants to do so and that we must comply, except in matters divinely revealed. This is the point here.

Maybe my example derailed the conversation. For that I’m sorry. Forget the example. Let’s focus on the Vatican’s concern, which is to ensure that it has the SSPX’s complete obedience and submission.

As I said earlier, they’re at a disadvantage, because the rest of the religious communities and societies of apostolic life have a proven track record or submission. Even when a few people derail, the Pope knows that there is not going to be a train wreck. There have always been individuals and small groups that derail, but the main body has always remained faithful and obedient. Take for example, the religious orders of men.

There have always been problem children, but the orders themselves have been very obedient and have backed down when told to do so. Can the pope expect that the SSPX will back down, if he says, “This conversation is over?” Many people have misgivings about this.

Right now, if you have a renegade Franciscan or a dozen of them, at the end of the day, the superiors general of the different Franciscan branches are all obedient and all stand there and take the tongue lashing from the pope. They even take the fall for their renegade brothers. When the pope says, “SHUT UP,” the Master of the Dominicans, the Minister General of the Franciscans, the Prior General of the Carmelites and the Superior General of the Jesuits just do just that. They shut up. They don’t make comments to the laity, to the press or even to their brothers in community.

Again, please don’t answer about altar girls. That’s not the point. The point I’m making is about authority and submission. It could be jelly beans. It’s still the same. The pope has the final word on the color of jelly beans used in the Catholic Church, not because it’s an infallible doctrine, but because he is the boss. If we lose sight of that fact that he’s the boss, we run the risk of losing sight of the primacy of the papacy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ServusMariae90]

You’re missing my point. My point is that the dialogue between the SSPX and the Vatican is not about terms, but about authority. I used the example of the sacrament, but I could have used any example and it will works.

Even using this example, if the Vatican says that the rule is now different and that the Canon of 1983 trumps the liturgical law of 1962, except in A, B and C, the Vatican has the right to do so and the rest of us have the obligation to comply That’s the issue at hand here.

The concern seems to be not with the books of this year or that year. The concern seems to be whether or not the SSPX and the laity who follow them will comply with the authority of the pope, even if he changes the road map. At the end of the day, it makes no sense to give the bishops and priests of the SSPX full canonical rights if they do not accept that the Pontiff can demand, enforce and abrogate anything he wants that is outside of divine revelation.

I don’t foresee a sane Pontiff going wild and throwing things out the window just because he can. But we have to accept that he can if he wants to do so and that we must comply, except in matters divinely revealed. This is the point here.

Maybe my example derailed the conversation. For that I’m sorry. Forget the example. Let’s focus on the Vatican’s concern, which is to ensure that it has the SSPX’s complete obedience and submission.

As I said earlier, they’re at a disadvantage, because the rest of the religious communities and societies of apostolic life have a proven track record or submission. Even when a few people derail, the Pope knows that there is not going to be a train wreck. There have always been individuals and small groups that derail, but the main body has always remained faithful and obedient. Take for example, the religious orders of men.

There have always been problem children, but the orders themselves have been very obedient and have backed down when told to do so. Can the pope expect that the SSPX will back down, if he says, “This conversation is over?” Many people have misgivings about this.

Right now, if you have a renegade Franciscan or a dozen of them, at the end of the day, the superiors general of the different Franciscan branches are all obedient and all stand there and take the tongue lashing from the pope. They even take the fall for their renegade brothers. When the pope says, “SHUT UP,” the Master of the Dominicans, the Minister General of the Franciscans, the Prior General of the Carmelites and the Superior General of the Jesuits just do just that. They shut up. They don’t make comments to the laity, to the press or even to their brothers in community.

Again, please don’t answer about altar girls. That’s not the point. The point I’m making is about authority and submission. It could be jelly beans. It’s still the same. The pope has the final word on the color of jelly beans used in the Catholic Church, not because it’s an infallible doctrine, but because he is the boss. If we lose sight of that fact that he’s the boss, we run the risk of losing sight of the primacy of the papacy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Thanks for your reply. I completely agree that one must be obedient to the Holy Father. From reading and listening to Bishop Fellay he seems like he is willing to do just that. I fear that there are those in the SSPX who are less willing to do the same. Of course, let us pray for them.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for your reply. I completely agree that one must be obedient to the Holy Father. From reading and listening to Bishop Fellay he seems like he is willing to do just that. I fear that there are those in the SSPX who are less willing to do the same. Of course, let us pray for them.

I share your impression on Bishop Fellay. I also share your impression about some of the others. The problem that many of us who are in positions of authority have is when we look at forums, blogs, magazines being put out there by either priests of the SSPX or laity that claims to be sympathetic to the SSPX. Some of them have made it very clear that they are not going to submit and that they will remain outside of full communion unless things don’t go the way they believe. This raises a question. How many of these folks are there and are there enough to compromise the reconciliation?

I don’t know the answer.

For the time being, there are great people out there who want to see this work and bring this chapter to a close. There are people out there who would rather prolong this conflict for years to come, until Rome converts to their vision of Catholicism.

Let me tell you, that it’s no different at the other extreme of the continuum. There are those who have to be avoided, because they’re pulling in the opposite direction. But their defiance of authority is probably more serious than the issues themselves. Even if they and the Church could agree on such issues a gay marriage, women priests, contraception and abortion, the question is, “Do they agree because they feel that they are right or because they feel a sense of fidelity to the Church and the pope?”

The person who complies, because he believes that the Church is right, is not really following the Church. He or she is passing a judgment and saying that the Church has passed his litmus test. That’s not true submission.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ServusMariae90]

I share your impression on Bishop Fellay. I also share your impression about some of the others. The problem that many of us who are in positions of authority have is when we look at forums, blogs, magazines being put out there by either priests of the SSPX or laity that claims to be sympathetic to the SSPX. Some of them have made it very clear that they are not going to submit and that they will remain outside of full communion unless things don’t go the way they believe. This raises a question. How many of these folks are there and are there enough to compromise the reconciliation?

I don’t know the answer.

For the time being, there are great people out there who want to see this work and bring this chapter to a close. There are people out there who would rather prolong this conflict for years to come, until Rome converts to their vision of Catholicism.

Let me tell you, that it’s no different at the other extreme of the continuum. There are those who have to be avoided, because they’re pulling in the opposite direction. But their defiance of authority is probably more serious than the issues themselves. Even if they and the Church could agree on such issues a gay marriage, women priests, contraception and abortion, the question is, “Do they agree because they feel that they are right or because they feel a sense of fidelity to the Church and the pope?”

The person who complies, because he believes that the Church is right, is not really following the Church. He or she is passing a judgment and saying that the Church has passed his litmus test. That’s not true submission.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Agreed. It would be a shame for some of those sympathetic to the SSPX to sabotage any attempts at reunion. I feel bad, to an extent, for all of the parties involved. The Holy See seems to have been willing to allow some leeway in regards to respectful discussions regarding Vatican II after regularization. So it seems like that the Holy Father is bending over backwards and seems to really want a solution to be found. And from what I could see in this interview that Bishop Fellay recognized that some of the criticisms have gone too far and that many of the things that they had criticized were actually not part of the Council. And when he talks about Religious Liberty, he criticizes (if that’s even the right word) the foundational principle of it (as opposed to toleration) in a really respectful way. So I think Bishop Fellay has had a relatively open mind. He certainly needs our prayers and his smile and demeanor leads me to think that he is a genuine person who is being completely honest about his personal views in the video.