SSPX update?

[RPRPsych]

Thank you very much, Brother. Just to chip in with my own thoughts.

Speaking on Archbishops Mueller and DiNoia, where do some Catholics get this over simplistic idea that they can ignore the Prefect of the CDF, the President and Vice President of EC?

Before there was Modernism, there was Protestantism. In fact, the former flows from the latter. People who condemn the former while tacitly accepting a version or the latter are in an untenable position.

Did the pope place them there, because he had no other job for them?

The same people who want the SSPX and the rest of us to look past these men are those who wanted everyone to look past Cardinal Laveda and accused the man of tempering with the Preamble, when in fact Pope Benedict admitted hat it was he who tampered with it when it was presented to him to sign. But people jumped to conclusions, raised accusations against the man and NEVER apologized . . . at least not on these fora.

That was a grave sin indeed. I was there when those accusations were flung about, and I’m sure I wasn’t the only one grieved about it. Thanks for reminding us.

We learn from history. I believe that Archbishop Mueller and Archbishop DiNoia are also students of history. They are not gong to make the same mistake as Cardinal Levada made. They are not going to be as compromising only to be undermined by the pope at the last minute. That was very embarrasing for Cardinal Levada. Not to mention that many people, even many on CAF, tried to blame him for the pope’s actions.

Here is the update on the SSPX. It’s goiing to have to deal with Archbisop Mueller on his terms. He will decide how much time and space he gives the Society. Unlike Cardinal Levada, he will not engage in dialogue with them, unless the Holy Father asks for it.

Something that we’d all do well to remember.

In addition, his calling out those who challenge Vatican II as being heretics is his way of putting these folks against the wall. “Either prove that you’re not a heretic or fail to do so and we’ll dismiss you as a heretic and have no dealings with you.” In reality, he’s rocking their boat without engaging in a dialogue.

And, in doing so, affirming his authority as Supreme Pontiff. Good for him!

 

[Faithdancer]

Come on . . . everyone knows that you use the Dead Sea scrolls themselves.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Actually we have some secret scrolls that nobody knows about…yet!!

 

[RPRPsych]

Actually we have some secret scrolls that nobody knows about…yet!!

The “Q” document beloved of liberal scholars? Say it ain’t so!

 

[JReducation]

Actually we have some secret scrolls that nobody knows about…yet!!

The “Q” document beloved of liberal scholars? Say it ain’t so!

Hey listen. I was trained in the Q sources hypothesis. It’s not a liberal notion as some rad trads try to make it.

I remember it well going through seminary. Those who did not go through seminary at the time may not be aware of how it was presented. It was presented as a hypothesis, not as a given.

Hypothesse are always welcome. This one turned out to be a hypothesis that could not be proven. It’s that simple. I fail to understand why rad trads have to make this a liberal issue.

Is the scientific method banned from the study of scripture?

The study of scripture is not a branch of theology. It is actually a branch of history. Therefore, hypotheses are allowed. Like every other discipline, a hypothesis can be proven to be a viable theory or it can fall by its lack of merit. There is nothing wrong with hypothesizing. It’s important to remember that the men and women who came up with this hypothesis were not writing for the person in the pew. They were writing for other scholars and students of scripture.

The mistake here was that some catechists, priests, deacons, religious and others who are responsible for adult faith formation took this hypothesis and taught to the laity as if it were a proven fact.

My policy is that I do not teach or reveal anything to the laity until it becomes a fact. As long as it’s a theory or a hypothesis, I work on it quietly along with my peers. Giving this information to the laity, without the right tools is like giving a chemistry set to a child without supervision. The next thing you know he’s blowing up your house.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[The_Bucket]

Well said brother. There’s no definitive proof that the Q source was written or oral, or if there was more than one of said sources, but it is clear simply from reading the Gospels that there is shared tradition between Matthew and Luke that does not appear in Mark. Why is this a problem for anyone? Scripture was written by men and so it only logically follows then that its writing would follow along the lines of how great works are usually assembled by men.

God’s Truth permeates the writing, but He has always chosen to use us as His tools… so much that He sent His Son to us as one of us in order to redeem us!

Truth is Truth and history is history. If the study of natural science does not conflict with the Truth, then neither should history.

 

[RPRPsych]

Hey listen. I was trained in the Q sources hypothesis. It’s not a liberal notion as some rad trads try to make it.

I remember it well going through seminary. Those who did not go through seminary at the time may not be aware of how it was presented. It was presented as a hypothesis, not as a given.

Hypothesse are always welcome. This one turned out to be a hypothesis that could not be proven. It’s that simple. I fail to understand why rad trads have to make this a liberal issue.

Is the scientific method banned from the study of scripture?

The study of scripture is not a branch of theology. It is actually a branch of history. Therefore, hypotheses are allowed. Like every other discipline, a hypothesis can be proven to be a viable theory or it can fall by its lack of merit. There is nothing wrong with hypothesizing. It’s important to remember that the men and women who came up with this hypothesis were not writing for the person in the pew. They were writing for other scholars and students of scripture.

The mistake here was that some catechists, priests, deacons, religious and others who are responsible for adult faith formation took this hypothesis and taught to the laity as if it were a proven fact.

My policy is that I do not teach or reveal anything to the laity until it becomes a fact. As long as it’s a theory or a hypothesis, I work on it quietly along with my peers. Giving this information to the laity, without the right tools is like giving a chemistry set to a child without supervision. The next thing you know he’s blowing up your house.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Sorry, Brother. I was just trying to be facetious there.

I’m all for scholarship (after all, it’s how I make my living!), and I agree with all that you’ve written above. For example, Fr. Henry Wansbrough’s notes to the New Jerusalem Bible do a great job of reconciling the “Q” theory with Tradition.

 

[JReducation]

Well said brother. There’s no definitive proof that the Q source was written or oral, or if there was more than one of said sources, but it is clear simply from reading the Gospels that there is shared tradition between Matthew and Luke that does not appear in Mark. Why is this a problem for anyone? Scripture was written by men and so it only logically follows then that its writing would follow along the lines of how great works are usually assembled by men.

God’s Truth permeates the writing, but He has always chosen to use us as His tools… so much that He sent His Son to us as one of us in order to redeem us!

Truth is Truth and history is history. If the study of natural science does not conflict with the Truth, then neither should history.

I don’t want to derail the thread and get it closed. So I’ll make one final clarification on this subject and shut up.

The study of Scripture is not the same as the study of theology. The study of scripture is much more historical and technical. Those who go out for advanced degrees in scripture are immersed in history, archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, literature and other sciences. Their goal is to understand how it was put together, how the pieces all point to Christ and what they are saying. They stop there.

At that point, the Systematic Theologian walks in and picks up on what the scriptures say and organizes the content into doctrinal and moral systems. He stops there.

Then in walk I and my peers in Ascetical and Mystical Theology and explore how these beliefs influence our journey to union with the Divine. We stop there.

In walks the student of ministry and divinity and develops pastoral systems that will help people journey toward union with the Divine.

The Catholic manner of studying the faith is truly a multi-disciplinary approach.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

Sorry, Brother. I was just trying to be facetious there.

I’m all for scholarship (after all, it’s how I make my living!), and I agree with all that you’ve written above. For example, Fr. Henry Wansbrough’s notes to the New Jerusalem Bible do a great job of reconciling the “Q” theory with Tradition.

Thank you for your apology. Don’t ever apologize to me. Our constitutions say
**
“Let every brother remember that he is less than the garbage that is vomited from the mouth of a dog. He was put on earth to clean up the vomit. His only claim to dignity is a gift of grace, not of his own merit or worthiness. Therefore, he is the servant of all and master over his sinfulness and nothing more.”**

As superior general, I have a moral duty to try to live this in order to lead my brothers and others to the humility of the Crucified Christ.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Dee_S]

No, it only means that bishops are required to enter communion with the college of bishops. Without they are conducting schismatic act, which can result in a schism.
This is the problem with SSPX bishops. They are ordained bishop without approval from the Pope, in fact ordained against the Pope will.
Thus, although ordained, they are suspended a divinis.

The problem with SSPX is that they openly acknowledge their membership in the Latin Church, affirming the Pope supreme jurisdiction, proclaiming that they bound by the Magisterium, living under the Latin Canon Law, but at the same time feel free to disobey and do what they like.

The Orthodox and Anglican are at least consistent. They are not professing Catholic faith and they do not in communion with the Pope, they are not even Catholic.

Progressive Catholics are even a bit more consistent, that they either not professing the whole of Catholic faith, declaring themselves unbounded by the Canon Law, proclaiming that communion with the hierarchy as superficial, thus they do what they want.

But the SSPX stance is different. They claim all orthodoxy, except in their open defiance to the Canon Law or even the Magisterium and the Pope jurisdiction.

And I’m not bashing at all. Just composing a summary of my observation.

:thumbsup:I like the way you put things. Especially how you point out all the inconsistency in the claims that the SSPX makes. It is very frustrating to see how many people overlook what is essentially the salient objection to them as an organization - one gets accused of ‘bashing’ or irritating others.

Surely, it is a tired old subject (about 40 years and still going) and the objections and viewpoint of the SSPX simply do not add up to anything sensible at all. i.e. with any person (not only Catholic) of remote logic.

Just think about this ‘before you shoot the messenger’ - what other legitimate attraction besides ‘Vatican Bashing’ "OF Bashing’ and ‘Pope & Bishop Bashing’ do they actually have to offer the discerning faithful when the Tridentine Rite or EF is widely available legitimately and in full communion with the Church?

To make my point. Earlier in this thread you will see that in the interview after their General Chapter, they publicly accused Archbishop Mueller of being heretical in his writings etc. What bad manners. Turned out they looked rather foolish in the end as it is not difficult to pick apart their illogical & erroneous attack and reduce it to the nonsense it is.

Some extracts from an interview given to Mittelbayerische Zeitung: by Archbishop Mueller:

*You have always been very critical of the SSPX. Now, you are responsible as Prefect for the return of the fallen-away Society into the bosom of the Church. How difficult is it? *
The negotiations of the Vatican with the SSPX brothers are friendly, Christian and humane… Who wants to become Catholic again must recognise the authority of the Pope and the bishops… No one should think that they can impose his own ideas of the Catholic Church. **The talks in Rome are not negotiations between two parties. No religious fraternity may impose conditions of the church. **

• The negotiations between the SSPX with the Vatican have been going on since January 2009. How much more time is needed.*
  Eventually, the “point of no return” is coming and they must decide: Do they wish for the unity of the Church? This includes the acceptance of the form and content of the Second Vatican Council, and the previous and subsequent statements and decisions of the Magisterium. There is no other way.

The main criticism of the SSPX is the Second Vatican Council’s- the permission for Masses in the local language instead of Latin. Is there any leeway?
What can be granted, is that which actually belongs to the diversity of the Catholic faith and life. **The liturgical reform of Vatican II was factually correct and necessary. **One cannot issue polemic against it just because there are abuses.

The SSPX have just designated you again as a heretic, that is, as one who has fallen from the faith.
I must not give an answer to every stupidity.

 

[RPRPsych]

Thank you for your apology. Don’t ever apologize to me. Our constitutions say
**
“Let every brother remember that he is less than the garbage that is vomited from the mouth of a dog. He was put on earth to clean up the vomit. His only claim to dignity is a gift of grace, not of his own merit or worthiness. Therefore, he is the servant of all and master over his sinfulness and nothing more.”**

As superior general, I have a moral duty to try to live this in order to lead my brothers and others to the humility of the Crucified Christ.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Wow.

I, for one, have certainly learnt a valuable lesson today. Thank you, Brother.

 

[Dee_S]

:thumbsup:I like the way you put things. Especially how you point out all the inconsistency in the claims that the SSPX makes. It is very frustrating to see how many people overlook what is essentially the salient objection to them as an organization - one gets accused of ‘bashing’ or irritating others.

Just think about this ‘before you shoot the messenger’ - what other legitimate attraction besides ‘Vatican Bashing’ "OF Bashing’ and ‘Pope & Bishop Bashing’ do they actually have to offer the discerning faithful when the Tridentine Rite or EF is widely available legitimately and in full communion with the Church?

Just in case anyone thinks I am exaggerating here, a browse of articles on any SSPX site provide my proof that they are incessantly ‘bashing’ Rome and any thing/body connected with it, even the Pope himself.

These 5 conditions were imposed on the SSPX in 2008.

Conditions resulting from the 4 june 2008 meeting between Dario Card. Castrillon Hoyos and Bishop Bernard Fellay:

1. 
   *]A commitment to a proportioned response to the generosity of the Pope.
   *]A commitment to avoid any public speech which does not respect the person of the Holy Father and which can be negative for ecclesial charity.
   *]A commitment to avoid the pretense of a Magisterium superior to the Holy Father and to not put forward the Fraternity [SSPX] in opposition to the Church.
   *]A commitment to demonstrate the will to behave honestly in full ecclesial charity and in respect to the authority of the Vicar of Christ.
   *]A commitment to respect the date – fixed at the end of the month of June – to respond positively. This will be a required and necessary condition for the immediate preparation for adhesion to have full communion.

 

[Dee_S]

I really have never seen the ‘perfect’ mass from a purely human point of view. The Extraordinary form has all the reverence and beauty but I don’t understand latin. All the novus ordo masses lack the reverence and beauty but I can understand what is said. To me the Extraordinary form (EO)of the mass is like being in heaven and the Novus Ordo (NO) mass is like being on earth. I don’t mind being on earth but I would rather be in heaven.

Sad to say, I have been to some Novus Ordo masses that were like going to the boxing ring to get spiritually beat up. I left feeling totally spiritually empty so I prayed to bring back Gods grace in me. I don’t believe that the Novus Ordo mass has anything wrong with it in itself, it is just that many priests have experimented with it in such a way as to make it more of a circus than a mass. Many priests try to make it just for the peoples entertainment and to keep them coming. I wonder if they really understand the workings of Gods grace. When I go to the Latin mass (EO), I truly can feel Gods grace working.

As we can see from the ever lowering attendance at mass as a whole, it isn’t entertainment that brings Catholics to the mass, it is the spiritual food they receive. At many Novus Ordo masses, they leave with very little spiritual nourishment. It is like when you go to your favorite restaurant and you order steak and you get an empty plate. After a while of leaving hungry, you stop going to that restaurant.

:console:sorry… it’s only a few posters who think yr on the wrong thread…you are not. There were many others who had recently raised your points and you were just responding to them. I feel that any balanced catholic viewpoint on the subject as a whole is welcome and in it’s own way is an ‘update’ or perhaps ‘wake-up-call’ to those who prefer flirting with the danger of attending SSPX masses, rather than be on the spot to help by resisting abuses when and where they are happening right now.

What a waste of potential. To have people committed to reverence and traditional values would be an invaluable help in stamping out the silly nonsense that goes on in some parishes.

Vote with your feet traditional minded catholics…walk away from those who disturb the harmony of full communion and pitch in and use your talents where they are needed:thumbsup:

 

[Dee_S]

Here is an update concerning the SSPX in (Zaitzkofen).

"The seminary Herz-Jesu has invited the Society of St. Pius X to a Diocesan priests meeting.

Theme: Second Vatican Council

Speaker: Lecturers of the Seminary

Monday, the 26th of November 2012

It will begin at 10:30 and last till 4:30. Respondy by 17 November 2012, in Zaitzkofen. (Priestly Seminary Herz-Jesu, Zaitzkofen 15, 84069 Schierling; Tel. 09451/943 190).

The Pastors, chaplains and priests, who are active in pastoral care are invited.

The Society of St. Pius X has entertained contact with all priests in Germany, who are interested in Catholic tradition. In 2011 17 pastors and chaplains participated in a lecture on the Latin Breviary in the Seminary of Herz Jesus.

Since March of this year the Society’s Father Robert Schmitt was officially authorized to maintain contact with Diocesan priests.

The largest action of the Society was the sending of the DVD for learning the Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass. In 2007 the Society personally wrote 17,000 priests in Germany in order to offer them this DVD. There were 2,000 DVDs ordered. The reason for the action was the Motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum of Benedict XVI, which had freed the traditional form of Mass again."
eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2012/11/zaitzkofen-sspx-invited-to-diocesan.html

Meeting in Diocesan Seminary

[Pius.info] The Society of St. Pius X in Germany offered regular places at priest conferences for Pastors and Chaplains for Diocesan pastoral care.

Last Monday the most recent meeting in Zaitzkofen in the Seminary of the Heart of Jesus ended.

13 Diocesan priests, who are friendly to the Society, had taken part.

“It was a meeting in an atmosphere with many enthusiastic discussions and a very lively, brotherly interaction,” said Fr. Franz Schmidberger. “We are very solicitous for contact with Diocesan priests,” also stressed the District Superior of Germany, who had travelled from Stuttgart for the meeting himself.

The theme was Vatican II and its consequences. The lecturers were the faculty of the Seminary of Herz Jesu.
eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2012/12/sspx-has-productive-meeting-discussing.html

 

[St_Donatus]

I think you are in the wrong thread.

Sorry, I was responding to an earlier comment and didn’t notice what the thread was about. Thanks

 

[Mike30]

I am sure that you are right on this. They are valid bishops. In the article above, unity with the Supreme Pontiff is needed for authority, not validity. So if we take what Dee said, then the word “qualify” it the problem. There is no such canonical term. No, they do not qualify as Catholic bishops in the sense that they would have not authority, but we already know that. This is why they have no canonical ministry. However, they do “qualify” in the sense they were validly ordained. Thus, they can validly ordain priests, which is why they have a valid Mass.

I wish JR was here on this. This sort of hair-splitting is more his cup of tea.

Edit
taking this line from the interview that started this thought:

• It is simply unacceptable that a Christian or even more a bishop — of course he is not a Catholic bishop, as a bishop is only Catholic when he is in full communion with the Pope, the Successor of Peter, which Williamson is not*

Note that he is called a bishop (that is, he is valid), but AB Muller states he is not a Catholic bishop. He is a valid bishop without a position in the Catholic Church.

Well, since they are valid Bishops and they have validly ordained Priests, would both groups be considered Catholic, Latin Rite to be specific? Or as appears to be the insinuation being made, Bishops and Priests that are just floating around? And if more Bishops are consecrated and Priests ordained, what would they be?

The Church considers the entire SSPX issue as an internal manner and if it is an internal matter then all concerned would appear to be Catholics, so I would have to assume if everyone is validly ordained and’or consecrated, then they would all be considered Catholic Priests and Bishops, albeit in an irregular status.

Perhaps the Archbishop should have been more clear in his wording if that is indeed the case as it could lead to an improper understanding of the situation.

At least that would appear to be the case from my understanding.

 

[Aramis]

Thank you for your apology. Don’t ever apologize to me. Our constitutions say
**
“Let every brother remember that he is less than the garbage that is vomited from the mouth of a dog. He was put on earth to clean up the vomit. His only claim to dignity is a gift of grace, not of his own merit or worthiness. Therefore, he is the servant of all and master over his sinfulness and nothing more.”**

As superior general, I have a moral duty to try to live this in order to lead my brothers and others to the humility of the Crucified Christ.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Remember good Friar - for those of us not under franciscan vows, apologizing when we err is part of OUR need to reconcile ourselves to god and man alike. His apology was as much for his own benefit - apologizing reinforces when one has erred, so that one might not do so again.

What’s that old saying… “sometimes the best gift one can give is to accept one.”

 

[pnewton]

The mistake here was that some catechists, priests, deacons, religious and others who are responsible for adult faith formation took this hypothesis and taught to the laity as if it were a proven fact.

My policy is that I do not teach or reveal anything to the laity until it becomes a fact.

That is a good policy. The one weird thing I had in RCIA was an attempt to explain JEPD. That was fine for college and seminary, but I felt the priest was kind of losing folks with it. My wife was as confused as could be by it until I explained the theory and emphasized it was only a theory.

While this may seem like a rabbit trail here, remember it started with a joke. Kudos for everyone who takes their shot a joke, especially on topics that can get contentious. We can never laugh too much.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I really have never seen the ‘perfect’ mass from a purely human point of view. The Extraordinary form has all the reverence and beauty but I don’t understand latin. All the novus ordo masses lack the reverence and beauty but I can understand what is said. To me the Extraordinary form (EO)of the mass is like being in heaven and the Novus Ordo (NO) mass is like being on earth. I don’t mind being on earth but I would rather be in heaven.

Sad to say, I have been to some Novus Ordo masses that were like going to the boxing ring to get spiritually beat up. I left feeling totally spiritually empty so I prayed to bring back Gods grace in me. I don’t believe that the Novus Ordo mass has anything wrong with it in itself, it is just that many priests have experimented with it in such a way as to make it more of a circus than a mass. Many priests try to make it just for the peoples entertainment and to keep them coming. I wonder if they really understand the workings of Gods grace. When I go to the Latin mass (EO), I truly can feel Gods grace working.

As we can see from the ever lowering attendance at mass as a whole, it isn’t entertainment that brings Catholics to the mass, it is the spiritual food they receive. At many Novus Ordo masses, they leave with very little spiritual nourishment. It is like when you go to your favorite restaurant and you order steak and you get an empty plate. After a while of leaving hungry, you stop going to that restaurant.

I think this is relevant to the thread as it’s actually a discussion about the SSPX’s position in general, affected by updates that come from time to time. This position focusses on the EF/OF Mass conflict.

There is a point to the OF Mass, in that the Church in the past ***always ***used in its liturgy the current spoken language of the region it was in: Latin in the Western Empire, Greek in the Eastern Empire, Slavonic in Russia, Coptic in south Egypt, Syrian in parts of Palestine, and so on. There was nothing special about Latin as a language that made it more suitable than any other for the liturgy.

Latin was retained as the liturgical language of the West because Latin itself survived there. The romance languages, Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, are derivatives of Latin and for a long time strongly resembled it. Latin remained the lingua franca of the educated class, who themselves passed on a familiarity with it to the uneducated. The average Dark and Middle Ages peasant may not have spoken Latin, but he had more than a passing acquaintance with it.

All this changed quite recently. Latin has been abandoned in the West, to the point that the average westerner is as familiar with it as he is with Hindustani. The Church could legitimately switch to languages the parishioners were familiar with.

There is a point to the EF Mass in that it preserves nearly 2000 years of carefully constructed and refined liturgical spirituality and reverence in its prayers and rites. Things which were permissible in the past were replaced by other things that were objectively better, like Communion in the hand by Communion on the Tongue (no rocks - Rome still prefers the latter!).

What is needed is the good features from both to be incorporated into a Mass that is accessible and reverent. As I’ve said before, the OF ***can ***be said reverently, to the point where a bishop Williamson could advise Traditionalists to attend one. But the manner in which it is very often celebrated needs a radical cleanup.

(also isn’t it time to get rid of the ‘For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory?’)

 

[JReducation]

Remember good Friar - for those of us not under franciscan vows, apologizing when we err is part of OUR need to reconcile ourselves to god and man alike. His apology was as much for his own benefit - apologizing reinforces when one has erred, so that one might not do so again.

What’s that old saying… “sometimes the best gift one can give is to accept one.”

It’s not that we don’t appreciate an apology. It’s that we never accept one when it’s not warranted, when no offense has been given to us, to our brothers, to our Holy Father Francis or to the Lord Pope. Any apology that is not deserved or necessary cannot be accepted under obedience. We must obey the rule and constitutions. When we fail to do so, we’re in deep trouble. Francis said that any friar who dares to question his words, his rule, his admonitions, will never see heaven, because those things were not given to him by man, but revealed to him by Christ himself. The Church has upheld this since the year 1223. I don’t want to be among that group that is damned to hell for disobedience.

I obey and I demand that my brothers obey without questions. No one is being asked to violate the Commandments. I hope that clarifies my situation a little more.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

what other legitimate attraction besides ‘Vatican Bashing’ "OF Bashing’ and ‘Pope & Bishop Bashing’ do they actually have to offer the discerning faithful when the Tridentine Rite or EF is widely available legitimately and in full communion with the Church?

There are places in the world where EF Masses are not widely available. This is true in my diocese, partially due to the local Bishop placing many formal and informal obstacles in the way. The SSPX offers the only EF Mass within 300 miles.

So, for some of us, the only access we have to an EF Mass is one offered by the SSPX.

• PAX