SSPX update?

[pnewton]

I like “selective Catholics” myself.

I like that. I think I will expand it to SDS (selective dissent syndrome). Symptoms include:
redness to the face
narrowing of the mind
loss of balance

 

[JReducation]

Brother, in other Countries, SSPX Priests and laypeople are in almost every pro-life manifestation, even when “mainstream” clergy isn’t present. And not only that, but in manifestations against anticatholicism too, for example, in France and Argentina. And about social justice, well, various Traditionalists (not only SSPX) support Distributism and third way parties in Hispanic countries, from South America to Europe.

Blessings!

That’s why I said that maybe they go on their own. It’s a pity that they won’t join us when we invite them to be part of a group.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[CesarAugustus]

That’s why I said that maybe they go on their own. It’s a pity that they won’t join us when we invite them to be part of a group.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

The situation seems to be different over there then.

About South America, I have seen photos with SSPX and Diocesan clergy and lay groups in the same pro-life manifestations in Argentina and Colombia.

Blessings!

 

[TimothyH]

I wear a habit of armor View attachment 15559,

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Truly divine revelation.

-Tim-

 

[Faithdancer]

I like “selective Catholics” myself.

“Selective” makes it sound like a good thing though, as in, “I’m not pro-choice, I’m just selectively Catholic.”

BTW – Catholics are not the only ones who are selective. You should spend a day with my family. We’re Jewish. We never had a Vatican II. I’m not sure who we’re going to blame for the demise of traditional Judaism. Talk about being selective. Lock yourself in a room with an Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed and Reconstructionist Jew. I’ll supply the Xanax.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I spent some holidays with my Jewish stepmother’s family when I was young. We used to have ham sometimes, which was interesting. Perhaps it was Kosher ham?

 

[JReducation]

The situation seems to be different over there then.

About South America, I have seen photos with SSPX and Diocesan clergy and lay groups in the same pro-life manifestations in Argentina and Colombia.

Blessings!

Here too, we go to the same marches, but we don’t go together as one group For example, if we invite them to join us they politely decline. Whether they attend or not, it’s hard to tell, because they don’t stand out. They dress like any other secular cleric. I’m thinking that it would be great to say that the Dominican, Franciscan, diocesan and SSPX parish rented a bus and are gong together to the Mach for Life rather than the Dominicans, Franciscans and diocesans going as one group and the SSPX as another. I’m glad that they go. I wish we would do it as one body.

I spent some holidays with my Jewish stepmother’s family when I was young. We used to have ham sometimes, which was interesting. Perhaps it was Kosher ham?

Kosher ham? That’s a new one on me I know that there is turkey ham. I’ve never heard of kosher pork ham. If you find out, let me know. Thanks.

I like “selective” because it does not have a condescending tone. It’s a very neutral word. Tomas a Kempis, St. Benedict, Augustine, Francis, Teresa of Avila and Bl. Teresa of Calcutta always remind us to pay attention to our spiritual state rather than that of our neighbor. The tendency among many people who use the term “Cafeteria Catholic” is to

a. Assume that only Catholics are selective about how they live their faith.

and

b. To speak as if they (the speaker) is always a good Catholic, which is not true. None of us are really good Catholics. We’re all struggling with something. Just today I received a PM from someone who did not like what I wrote on a post. To be honest, he did not understand what the original person was asking; therefore, he did not understand my reason for responding as I did. It was good for him to raise the question. However, it was interesting because he began his message by addressing me as an “alleged religious” and continued by pointing the finger at bishops who do not follow certain laws

I thought to myself that it is interesting how we violate charity, respect, trust and good manners in the name of truth and defense of the faith, because we respond with knee-jerk reactions. It just proves to me that what the saints have told us is true. None of us is really a perfect Catholic. We just struggle in different areas. Therefore, I avoid all language that may make me sound as a better Catholic than the guy next door.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Here too, we go to the same marches, but we don’t go together as one group For example, if we invite them to join us they politely decline. Whether they attend or not, it’s hard to tell, because they don’t stand out. They dress like any other secular cleric. I’m thinking that it would be great to say that the Dominican, Franciscan, diocesan and SSPX parish rented a bus and are gong together to the Mach for Life rather than the Dominicans, Franciscans and diocesans going as one group and the SSPX as another. I’m glad that they go. I wish we would do it as one body.

Kosher ham? That’s a new one on me I know that there is turkey ham. I’ve never heard of kosher pork ham. If you find out, let me know. Thanks.

I like “selective” because it does not have a condescending tone. It’s a very neutral word. Tomas a Kempis, St. Benedict, Augustine, Francis, Teresa of Avila and Bl. Teresa of Calcutta always remind us to pay attention to our spiritual state rather than that of our neighbor. The tendency among many people who use the term “Cafeteria Catholic” is to

a. Assume that only Catholics are selective about how they live their faith.

and

b. To speak as if they (the speaker) is always a good Catholic, which is not true. None of us are really good Catholics. We’re all struggling with something. Just today I received a PM from someone who did not like what I wrote on a post. To be honest, he did not understand what the original person was asking; therefore, he did not understand my reason for responding as I did. It was good for him to raise the question. However, it was interesting because he began his message by addressing me as an “alleged religious” and continued by pointing the finger at bishops who do not follow certain laws

I thought to myself that it is interesting how we violate charity, respect, trust and good manners in the name of truth and defense of the faith, because we respond with knee-jerk reactions. It just proves to me that what the saints have told us is true. None of us is really a perfect Catholic. We just struggle in different areas. Therefore, I avoid all language that may make me sound as a better Catholic than the guy next door.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Yup. And St Francis, arguably the greatest saint in the history of the Church (after our Lady, obviously) understood this, which is why he signed things your littlest/least brother.

 

[Lormar]

I thought to myself that it is interesting how we violate charity, respect, trust and good manners in the name of truth and defense of the faith, because we respond with knee-jerk reactions. It just proves to me that what the saints have told us is true. None of us is really a perfect Catholic. We just struggle in different areas. Therefore, I avoid all language that may make me sound as a better Catholic than the guy next door.

Very true, and good advice.

 

[CesarAugustus]

Here too, we go to the same marches, but we don’t go together as one group For example, if we invite them to join us they politely decline. Whether they attend or not, it’s hard to tell, because they don’t stand out. They dress like any other secular cleric. I’m thinking that it would be great to say that the Dominican, Franciscan, diocesan and SSPX parish rented a bus and are gong together to the Mach for Life rather than the Dominicans, Franciscans and diocesans going as one group and the SSPX as another. I’m glad that they go. I wish we would do it as one body.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Brother, in one of the cases I was referring too, the Diocesan Bishop, was there with various Priests, two of the, from the SSPX.

A Diocesan Bishop greeting a SSPX Priest.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/361_28972779900_3382_n.jpg

The Bishop Blessing a Cross:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/361_28973189900_7563_n.jpg

A SSPX Priest carrying the cross:

http://www.fsspx-sudamerica.org/imagenes/buca11.jpg

People from a Jesuit School (foreground), and people that attend an SSPX chapel -I think they are, because I saw a photo of a SSPX Priest blessing the banners they’re carrying- (behind them):

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/361_28965054900_3470_n.jpg

Servidores del Servidor:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/361_28943964900_2200_n.jpg

People from an Opus Dei school:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/361_28943949900_834_n.jpg

Blessings!

P.D. It was difficult to get similar photos from other manifestations, because most of these are found on Facebook profiles or pages, and not all are public like the ones I posted here.

 

[Faithdancer]

A Diocesan Bishop greeting a SSPX Priest.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/361_28972779900_3382_n.jpg

I pray fervently for reconciliation, and photos like this to become commonplace. We are one holy, Roman, Catholic and apostolic Church!

 

[Aramis]

Kosher ham?

Turkey “ham” can be made in kosher, tho’ not for passover…

Pork is traef, period.

 

[Faithdancer]

Turkey “ham” can be made in kosher, tho’ not for passover…

Pork is traef, period.

Oh it oinked all right. I was teasing them when I asked if it was Kosher, I knew that’s not possible.

 

[JReducation]

Brother, in one of the cases I was referring too, the Diocesan Bishop, was there with various Priests, two of the, from the SSPX.

A Diocesan Bishop greeting a SSPX Priest.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/361_28972779900_3382_n.jpg

The Bishop Blessing a Cross:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/361_28973189900_7563_n.jpg

A SSPX Priest carrying the cross:

http://www.fsspx-sudamerica.org/imagenes/buca11.jpg

People from a Jesuit School (foreground), and people that attend an SSPX chapel -I think they are, because I saw a photo of a SSPX Priest blessing the banners they’re carrying- (behind them):

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/361_28965054900_3470_n.jpg

Servidores del Servidor:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/361_28943964900_2200_n.jpg

People from an Opus Dei school:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/361_28943949900_834_n.jpg

Blessings!

P.D. It was difficult to get similar photos from other manifestations, because most of these are found on Facebook profiles or pages, and not all are public like the ones I posted here.

Thanks for sharing these. They’re awesome to see.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ringil]

So, I am beginning to think that nothing is going to change with this situation for years.

Wasn’t a resolution supposed to happen? Wasn’t Rome finally “putting it’s foot down”? What happened with that?

 

[JReducation]

So, I am beginning to think that nothing is going to change with this situation for years.

Wasn’t a resolution supposed to happen? Wasn’t Rome finally “putting it’s foot down”? What happened with that?

The Holy Father did so. He told Bishop Fellay what they needed to do in order to be regularized. There is not much more for the Holy Father to say. He can’t send out Swiss Guards to bring them home.

In short, the Holy Father said

1. Only the pope decides what is and is not tradition
2. Accept Vatican II and its documents without criticism
3. Accept that the Ordinary Form of the mass is both valid and licit and stop criticizing it.

The SSPX has said that it cannot accept these three points. The only thing that Rome can do is wait to see what the SSPX does next.

If they go on as usual, nothing much will happen. If they ordain another bishop, that will change the whole situation. The real concern is that the four bishops, like all of us, are going to get old and die. So what’s the plan for the future? This is where there is a possible schism.

If they ordain successors and the laity does as the laity of the East did 1,000 years ago, there will be a schism. It will take generations to heal. We can’t do another schism right now. We’re still fixing the mess that our ancestors bequeathed to us from the Great Schism. Talk about a lousy inheritance to leave your children. . .

Let’s pray that the SSPX doesn’t leave their children a similar inheritance.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ringil]

The Holy Father did so. He told Bishop Fellay what they needed to do in order to be regularized. There is not much more for the Holy Father to say. He can’t send out Swiss Guards to bring them home.

In short, the Holy Father said

1. Only the pope decides what is and is not tradition
2. Accept Vatican II and its documents without criticism
3. Accept that the Ordinary Form of the mass is both valid and licit and stop criticizing it.

The SSPX has said that it cannot accept these three points. The only thing that Rome can do is wait to see what the SSPX does next.

If they go on as usual, nothing much will happen. If they ordain another bishop, that will change the whole situation. The real concern is that the four bishops, like all of us, are going to get old and die. So what’s the plan for the future? This is where there is a possible schism.

If they ordain successors and the laity does as the laity of the East did 1,000 years ago, there will be a schism. It will take generations to heal. We can’t do another schism right now. We’re still fixing the mess that our ancestors bequeathed to us from the Great Schism. Talk about a lousy inheritance to leave your children. . .

Let’s pray that the SSPX doesn’t leave their children a similar inheritance.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

So it is still OK for a Catholic who needs the EF- or feels they do- and who does not have access to one to participate at an SSPX chapel? At least that is my understanding of the current law- maybe that’s just the spin of the SSPX apologists. I know that you, brother, are the fellow with the trustworthy information on this.

It’s like Rome hasn’t given any consequences for the stubborn behavior of Fellay and the other Bishops. It’s just back to the status quo. Again, perhaps “consequences” are not really the interest of the hole see. Perhaps they just want to wait this think out.

And lastly, with all of the respect in the world, the problems with the SSPX hardly rise to the degree of the Great Schism.

Thanks for your reply Brother.

 

[Moore11]

So it is still OK for a Catholic who needs the EF- or feels they do- and who does not have access to one to participate at an SSPX chapel? At least that is my understanding of the current law- maybe that’s just the spin of the SSPX apologists. I know that you, brother, are the fellow with the trustworthy information on this.

It’s like Rome hasn’t given any consequences for the stubborn behavior of Fellay and the other Bishops. It’s just back to the status quo. Again, perhaps “consequences” are not really the interest of the hole see. Perhaps they just want to wait this think out.

And lastly, with all of the respect in the world, the problems with the SSPX hardly rise to the degree of the Great Schism.

Thanks for your reply Brother.

Here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=716742&page=5

Brother chimes in at about page 4 but I think his best response was the first one on page 8. Until brother chimes in it is pretty much like reading a bunch of monkeys in a zoo.
It is a good thing we have brother. even when he gets on my nerves…

 

[Dee_S]

This communique may be ‘old’ but contains the relevant requisites for the SSPX to fulfil in order to return to ‘full communion’ with the Church

VATICAN CITY, 14 SEP 2011 (VIS**) - At midday today the Holy See Press Office released the following communique concerning the position of the Society of St. Pius X:**

"On 14 September at the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Joseph Levada, prefect of the congregation and president of the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’; Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer S.J., secretary of the congregation, and Msgr. Guido Pozzo, secretary of the pontifical commission, met with Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, who was accompanied by Fr. Niklaus Pfluger and Fr. Alain-Marc Nely, respectively first and second assistant general to the society.

"Following the appeal of 15 December 2008, addressed by the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, the Holy Father decided to remove the excommunication against the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre. At the same time, he approved the opening of discussions with the society in order to clarify doctrinal problems and to heal the existing rift.

"In order to put the Holy Father’s instructions into effect, a joint study commission was set up, composed of experts from the Society of St. Pius X and from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who met in Rome on eight occasions between October 2009 and April 2011. Their discussions, which aimed to identify and study the essential doctrinal difficulties in the controversial issues, had the result of clarifying the positions of the two sides and their respective motivations.

"While bearing in mind the concerns and demands presented by the Society of St. Pius X about protecting the integrity of the Catholic faith against Vatican Council II’s ‘hermeneutic of rupture’ with Tradition (a theme addressed by Pope Benedict XVI in his address to the Roman Curia on 22 December 2005), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith maintains that the fundamental basis for achieving full reconciliation with the Apostolic See is the acceptance of the text of the Doctrinal Preamble, which was handed over during a meeting on 14 September 2011. The Preamble defines certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church Magisterium and ‘sentire cum Ecclesia’. **At the same time, it leaves open to legitimate discussion the examination and theological explanation of individual expressions and formulations contained in the documents of Vatican Council II and later Magisterium.
**
“At the same meeting, certain suggestions were made for a canonical solution to the position of the Society of St. Pius X, with a view to achieving the desired reconciliation”.
visnews-en.blogspot.com/2011/…ety-of-st.html

 

[Dee_S]

So it is still OK for a Catholic who needs the EF- or feels they do- and who does not have access to one to participate at an SSPX chapel? At least that is my understanding of the current law- maybe that’s just the spin of the SSPX apologists. I know that you, brother, are the fellow with the trustworthy information on this.Thanks for your reply Brother.

Faith is not greater than obedience - contrary to what the SSPX and/or others insist in this regard. Claiming a state of crisis in the Church which allows them to invoke an ‘extraordinary jurisdiction’. This is a false presumption which is censured, as is borne out by their having no canonical status in the Church. Their bishops/priests faculties are suspended and their confessions and marriages are invalid. The masses their say are valid but illicit.
**
Moral impediment**
In 1995, it declared it “morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these (the SSPX) Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing”, and added that "the fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called ‘Tridentine’ Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses."[12]

The Commission recognized the validity of the ordination of the SSPX priests, but added that they were prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because of not being properly incardinated in a diocese or religious institute in full communion with the Holy See. It also said that the Masses they celebrated were valid but illicit, but the lack of proper faculties on the part of the SSPX priests meant that celebrations of Penance and Matrimony under their auspices were invalid.

Extraordinary jurisdiction
The SSPX considers itself faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Popes, up to and including Benedict XVI. The SSPX bishops do not claim “ordinary” jurisdiction over the Society’s adherents, which would make the latter subject to them, not to the local diocesan bishops,[21] and would amount to an obvious challenge to the Holy See’s authority act of schism. Instead they say they possess an “extraordinary” jurisdiction. This is of specific importance in Catholic canon law in relation to the sacraments of confession and marriage.
**

Absolution of sins**
To absolve sins validly, a priest must be given the faculty to do so,[22] a faculty that, normally, only the local bishop can give.[23] Similarly, in normal circumstances a marriage can be contracted validly only in the presence of the local bishop or the parish priest or of a priest or deacon delegated by one of these.[24] To overcome this difficulty, the Society says[25] that absolution and marriage under its auspices are valid, on the grounds of its interpretation of canon 144 §1 of the Code of Canon Law, which states: “In common error, whether of fact or of law, and in positive and probable doubt, whether of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and the internal forum”, and canon 844 §2, which declares that, “whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.”** 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][27]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X#cite_note-McNamara-26
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X

 

[twf]

The Holy Father did so. He told Bishop Fellay what they needed to do in order to be regularized. There is not much more for the Holy Father to say. He can’t send out Swiss Guards to bring them home.

In short, the Holy Father said

1. Only the pope decides what is and is not tradition
2. Accept Vatican II and its documents without criticism
3. Accept that the Ordinary Form of the mass is both valid and licit and stop criticizing it.

The SSPX has said that it cannot accept these three points. The only thing that Rome can do is wait to see what the SSPX does next.

If they go on as usual, nothing much will happen. If they ordain another bishop, that will change the whole situation. The real concern is that the four bishops, like all of us, are going to get old and die. So what’s the plan for the future? This is where there is a possible schism.

If they ordain successors and the laity does as the laity of the East did 1,000 years ago, there will be a schism. It will take generations to heal. We can’t do another schism right now. We’re still fixing the mess that our ancestors bequeathed to us from the Great Schism. Talk about a lousy inheritance to leave your children. . .

Let’s pray that the SSPX doesn’t leave their children a similar inheritance.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Brother - forget the Great Schism - we are still dealing with the Chalcedonian schism of 451! 1500 years later…
Though Blessed John Paul made great strides in that regard with the common Christological agreements between the Catholic Church and the Coptic / Syriac Orthodox (non-Chalcedonian) Churches. You’re quite right - the last thing we ever need is more schisms.