SSPX update?

[Dee_S]

While I’m at it, I may as well post his answers to confession, which, considering that the marriages & confessions of SSPX priests are invalid, is quite something to digest:

Can a traditional Catholic go to confession to a Novus Ordo priest?
“Furthermore, I do not hesitate to strongly recommend against going to confession to such a priest, even when there is an assurance of a valid absolution.”

“Manifestly it is not possible to have confidence in the guidance of a priest who compromises with modernism by celebrating the New Mass, even if he otherwise appears orthodox…The supernatural vision of Faith will necessarily have been undermined by the humanism and naturalism of the New Mass and the spirit of Vatican II. Our souls are much too precious to place in the hands of those who lack conviction.”
[Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]
sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm

Our souls are much too precious - it is always worth the time & effort to debunk and/or expose the dangerous errors that underlie the continued rejection by the SSPX - of the authority of the Holy Father, of the New Mass and Vatican II, as can be seen in the above extract from their website and in their public statements and responses to the Holy See.

In reply to the blanket accusation of “slander” and “hate” by a poster on this thread, I would like to say that by the posting of public facts (in the form of full quotes which can be referenced by links)about the SSPX, no matter how unpalatable it may be to some, it is unfair to sit in judgment of the intentions of the poster.

We have a Moderator:curtsey:who’s unenviable task it is to correct us should we err.

The Holy Father has offered the SSPX a Personal Prelature:
"Bishop Fellay, who was accompanied by an assistant, met with U.S. Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Luis Ladaria, congregation secretary, and Msgr. Guido Pozzo, secretary of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei.”

“During the meeting, Bishop Fellay was given the Holy See’s evaluation – including the opinion of Pope Benedict XVI – of the society’s April response to a “doctrinal preamble” that the bishop would need to sign in order to reconcile the society with the rest of the church, the Vatican said in a written statement released June 14.”

“When asked whether giving Bishop Fellay a formal proposal of a prelature was a sign the Vatican had approved the bishop’s response to the doctrinal preamble, Father Lombardi told journalists that all doctrinal differences had to be resolved before any formal recognition could be made”

“However, evidently (the prelature proposal) was presented so that if the doctrinal issue is resolved, the canonical part is ready,” he said."
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1202500.htm

Also, there will be no “sudden” acceptance of the SSPX until they meet with the conditions for full communion as laid down by the Holy Father:
“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.”
visnews-en.blogspot.com/2011/09/communique-concerning-society-of-st.html

 

[pnewton]

??? I dont understand this? Are you saying that if one attends an SSPX Mass out of love for the EF and has not access to the EF in a reasonable area that one would commit sin? How do you arrive at this?

No. If you read the previous page it was the SSPX that said the Catholic Mass was sinful.
*"However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. *

Why in the world would the Holy Father have to admit “wrong” to permit the SSPX to have a personal prelature. He is the HOLY FATHER. he can do as he wishes and as is best for the Church.

He doesn’t. I was responding to reality, what has really been said about what the Church will and will not allow, not speculation based on what ifs. The recognition of the legitimacy of the current Mass has been set as a requirement. Could the Holy Father change? Sure. He could also move all Vatican operations to San Francisco. I do not think either likely.

 

[Aramis]

People tend to get upset when reminded that the SSPX is not outside the church, at least not yet, despite having no canonical ministry within the church.

The excommunication was lifted. The suspension wasn’t.

The same can (and should) be said of the vast majority of the laity. They are part of the Church, and have no canonical ministry within the church.

The same can be said of many a defrocked and/or dispensed but not laicized priest… still part of the church, subject to its obligations, but not able to exercise ministry.

In fact, the canonical status of the SSPX is closest to those defrocked priests - not released from their vows, nor the sunday obligation, but not permitted to be the celebrants until reconciled.

One defrocked priest, of my long acquaintance, goes every sunday to Mass. He’s forbidden to minister - he can’t even read the lection nor help take up the collection. But he’s still obligated to go. And he goes. Nor can he lead the hours; he still says them privately. He’s a shining example of submission to authority in the face of adversity. I pray for him. He prays for me.

He does what the SSPX is called to do: accept the judgement of the Church, and obey what the Magisterium has put forward… then work to reduce the abuses from within.

 

[pnewton]

But in reality it is not our sense of justice or reconciliation that the SSPX has to answer to it is Holy Mother church’s.

Absolutely, but the SSPX has not answered to it yet. Things could change. If and when they do, then things will change. Until then, things haven’t changed.
I leave you with an example of what happens to SSPX people sometimes and ask you

if the person who answers the question in this thread deserved to be treated this way? Would an Angelica seminarian have been treated this way?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=699097

That is good that you linked that. It shows a thread with the only hate was the* claim* of hate against the SSPX. No one hated anyone there. No one hates anyone here. It is a poor use of the word “hate”.

 

[Faithdancer]

Opus Dei can be awesome. I receive my doctorate in theology from their university in Rome. They were theologically very solid and at the same time very relaxed. The one thing that I learned from them, among many other things, is that one can be reverent, faithful, orthodox and be relaxed and jovial.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

This is why I held Opus Dei up as an example of what the SSPX could be, should they choose to reconcile. I don’t think we need to keep harping on what has happened in the past, or all the negativity, etc. We also don’t need to keep harping about submission to papal authority, that’s a given. I believe it is more productive to keep positive thoughts for reconciliation. I pray that there is a softening all around of resistance to what is so clearly beneficial to both SSPX and to the Church. I pray fervently that we soon have a second Personal Prelature within the Church. I watch for news, and pray.

 

[JReducation]

However, there is a level of respect on the forums that is extended to many other dissenters or differing people that is missing for the SSPX. No one would ever say the things about attendees or ministers of faith in other sections of the forums that they seem to about the SSPX. Objectivity is hard to find sometimes.

I’ll begin by agreeing with you that objectivity is hard to find. Just ask me or any other major superior. When your brother does something wrong, your first thought is to throttle him. Then you remember that you’re supposed to nurture his soul and lead him, not spank him.

Having said this, I’d like to address the difference that you see in how people react to other dissenters and to leaders of other faiths vs how they react to the SSPX. It’s not an easy thing to understand. Human dynamics never are easy, because human beings are very complex.

Nonetheless, I believe there are several points that one has to keep in mind.

The Church has commanded us to treat people of other faiths with respect, regardless of what they say about us. It’s not up for discussion, if we are truly obedient. The local Baptist minister may call me an idolater because I pray in front of a crucifix and it’s not very polite on his part nor pleasant for me to hear. However, I have a mandate from the Church. The mandate is to preach by example and to respond by seeking dialogue, not confrontation. The directions are very clear as to how I am to respond. As tempted as I may be to pick up a coconut and hit the guy on the head, I know that I have to follow the rules.

There is another point that complicates matters. The SSPX leadership seems to allow belligerence. The responses given to the questions on confession and the mass are belligerent. The leadership of the SSPX itself has said that the Ordinary Form of the mass is valid. Archbishop Lefebvre himself never went that far.

I’m speaking as a superior right now, if one of my brothers had made the same statement, I would yank his head and use it for cat food.

Like me, there are many people who look at statements like this made by members of the SSPX or of the Daughters of Charity and ask the same question. How is it that the leadership allows such things to be said in public? The fact that they are said repeatedly implies that there have been no consequences.

We don’t expect the same disciplinary response from the leadership of other faiths when their people make certain comments about us. There is no reason to expect the same response. We have no authority over those individuals and their system of government is different from our own.

At times, I don’t expect the same intensity of disciplinary action from certain leaders and authority figures in the Catholic Church for similar reasons. The individual dissenters have exemptions and freedoms that most of us do not have. Even when they abuse those exemptions and freedoms, tradition, theology, law or all of these do not allow us to strip them of these benefits. There is very little that a superior or a bishop can do or say. In those cases, saying anything may draw more attention to the dissenter than keeping quiet and letting it all die out in a few weeks.

The way that the SSPX is structured, one expects more control. There is a superior general. There are regional superiors. There are local priors. And there is a general chapter that governs the Society. It has many safeguards in place that should keep its members under control. One can understand an individual saying something inappropriate. However, when it is repetitive, then one begins to doubt the those in authority really care.

Finally, I believe that the other problem here is that SSPX is more than just a Fr. Rahner, Fr Kung or Fr. Curren. These were individuals who were part of a movement, but not an organized institution. We respond to them as isolated individuals, which means that we take the good that they say and we ignore the silliness. The SSPX is an institution. And it’s an institution that is telling the rest of the Catholic world, including other traditionalists that we’re all wrong and it’s right. It has assumed an air of authority over the rest of us. First of all, the SSPX has no canonical status. Secondly, the SSPX is not the Magisterium. Third, the SSPX’s approach is rather uppity.

I believe that all of these things together really have an influence in the current state of the relationship of the SSPX and the mainstream Church. Even if they are reconciled tomorrow morning, there is going to be a long period before people get over the resentment. They have violated trust.

You get punched in the nose often enough that it takes a long time before you trust that you’re not going to be punched again. Remember desegregation. The change in law did not put an end to racism. A change in status is not going to put an end to resentment. Human beings are complicated creatures.

 

[JReducation]

Can a traditional Catholic go to confession to a Novus Ordo priest?
“It would certainly be valid to go to confession to a priest who still celebrates the Novus Ordo Mass, provided that the penitent were assured of the doctrinal orthodoxy of the priest, his intention of doing what the Church does, and his use of the correct formula of absolution…”

“However, it is not easy to have the assurance of a valid absolution, given the fact that the post-Conciliar Church consistently downgrades the reality and gravity of mortal sin,…”

“Furthermore, I do not hesitate to strongly recommend against going to confession to such a priest, even when there is an assurance of a valid absolution.”

“Manifestly it is not possible to have confidence in the guidance of a priest who compromises with modernism by celebrating the New Mass, even if he otherwise appears orthodox. Neither his judgment as to the reality of our contrition, nor his instruction as to the gravity of our sins, nor his remedies for the ills of our sins can be depended upon. The supernatural vision of Faith will necessarily have been undermined by the humanism and naturalism of the New Mass and the spirit of Vatican II. Our souls are much too precious to place in the hands of those who lack conviction.”

“Consequently, outside case of danger of death, it is preferable to make an act of perfect contrition, and to wait until one can open one’s soul to a traditional priest that can be trusted.” [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]
sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm

This is a perfect example of something that is totally disrespectful. You don’t trash your confreres in the priesthood this way. If this were one of my men, I’d have his head. There would be another article apologizing.

I’m remembering when Fr. Benedict made the inappropriate comment about sexual abuse. The Franciscan superior quickly responded and took action. I would expect the same from the SSPX superior. The absence of such action creates mistrust.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Faithdancer]

I refer to your words in bold. What do you mean by that? It appears that you are rather disrespectful to people on CAF and to our moderators. Why do you choose to continue to post on CAF then?

Personally, (and I am sure its the same with the vast majority of Catholics), I did not even know about the SPPX until I joined CAF. I just want to attend Mass without anyone saying the Mass I attend is invalid, without saying the Pope/Popes are/were wrong, without others trying to teach me what the Church does not teach. Talking of slander…

I didn’t take it that he was referring to CAF members in general, perhaps just some who have jumped in on this thread with inflammatory comments, such as comparing the SSPX to Arianists. That, of course, is absurd, and betrays a fundamental lack of knowledge of Trinitarian theology and Christology.

I believe you are correct that the majority of Catholics have never heard of SSPX. Unfortunately a sizable percentage of Catholics seem to have never heard of the Real Presence or the Sunday obligation or the sanctity of all human life or the sacramental nature of marriage, either, but that’s another issue. At any rate there has been one SSPX Third Order member posting here of late, who has been circumspect and humble, in my opinion. Rather than provoke him, I prefer to treat him as a fellow Catholic Christian and hear his thoughts. What a golden opportunity to hear from someone on the inside what the “word on the street,” i.e. the SSPX pews, is. I assume others would be interested to know as well, unless they just pop in on the thread to pick a quarrel.

I’ve said it before- ostracism and condemnation are not the answer- love and open dialogue are. This also holds true for those who favor a more secularized and morally relativistic Church although I think those folks are in far greater numbers and are on the inside, thus presenting a far greater “danger.” It will take a massive amount of re-education on basic Catholic teachings to solve* that *problem, which really is a completely different kind of problem than the SSPX situation.

 

[Faithdancer]

I believe that all of these things together really have an influence in the current state of the relationship of the SSPX and the mainstream Church. Even if they are reconciled tomorrow morning, there is going to be a long period before people get over the resentment. They have violated trust.

If SSPX were reconciled tomorrow morning, it is because Pope Benedict XVI wants it and all the right things have been done and said. If that were to happen, people would need to get over it real quick and embrace the SSPX as fellow Catholics, or they would then be in defiance of the Pope.

 

[JReducation]

If SSPX were reconciled tomorrow morning, it is because Pope Benedict XVI wants it and all the right things have been done and said. If that were to happen, people would need to get over it real quick and embrace the SSPX as fellow Catholics, or they would then be in defiance of the Pope.

You would be defiant if you violate the papal mandates or if you deny them their canonical rights. They do not have a canonical right to be trusted. You cannot mandate emotions unless you’re a religious superior speaking to your subordinates. Resentment and lack of trust are emotions. Only certain people in the Church have the authority to legislate emotions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[pnewton]

If that were to happen, people would need to get over it real quick and embrace the SSPX as fellow Catholics, or they would then be in defiance of the Pope.

As the SSPX are our fellow Catholics already, there shouldn’t be anything to get over. I mean, it is not like they are the only Catholics out there problems.

 

[JReducation]

The complication of which I’m speaking has nothing to do with accepting the members of the SSPX as fellow Catholics. I can accept a thief as a fellow Catholic, because he is a Catholic. It does not change the fact that he’s a thief.

The leadership of the SSPX has allowed some of its priests to say some very nasty things. I know that these priests are Catholic. I know that Bishop Fellay is Catholic. That does not take away the sting from the nasty things that he has allowed to be said.

As with the Catholic thief, I would be very cautious with certain priests of the SSPX. A reconciliation is not going to change them anymore than desegregation changed bigots and racists.

Laws control behavior, not hearts.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Faithdancer]

The complication of which I’m speaking has nothing to do with accepting the members of the SSPX as fellow Catholics. I can accept a thief as a fellow Catholic, because he is a Catholic. It does not change the fact that he’s a thief.

The leadership of the SSPX has allowed some of its priests to say some very nasty things. I know that these priests are Catholic. I know that Bishop Fellay is Catholic. That does not take away the sting from the nasty things that he has allowed to be said.

As with the Catholic thief, I would be very cautious with certain priests of the SSPX. A reconciliation is not going to change them anymore than desegregation changed bigots and racists.

Laws control behavior, not hearts.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

“priests of the SSPX” in the same context as "“thief” and “bigots and racists.”

 

[JReducation]

“priests of the SSPX” in the same context as "“thief” and “bigots and racists.”

I’m comparing negative experiences, not morality.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Aramis]

You would be defiant if you violate the papal mandates or if you deny them their canonical rights. They do not have a canonical right to be trusted. You cannot mandate emotions unless you’re a religious superior speaking to your subordinates. Resentment and lack of trust are emotions. Only certain people in the Church have the authority to legislate emotions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

And even when that authority exists, it’s a limited context - The good friar as a superior can only legislate it for the brothers under his care, and only because it’s part of the vows the brothers took. In part, because the vows of friars place them under the total obedience of their superior in all things.

The SSPX isn’t bound to obedience in the same way. From SSPX.org: “The Society of St. Pius X is an international priestly society of common life without vows, whose purpose is the priesthood and that which pertains to it.”

Without vows, disobedience, while still sinful, is not damnable in the same way it would be for a Franciscan. And emotions are probably outside the bounds. (I couldn’t turn up their promises readily to check.)

 

[Dee_S]

There is another point that complicates matters. The SSPX leadership seems to allow belligerence. The responses given to the questions on confession and the mass are belligerent. The leadership of the SSPX itself has said that the Ordinary Form of the mass is valid. Archbishop Lefebvre himself never went that far.

Perhaps you have never heard them speaking or have seen the writings that are circulated internally. If so, you would understand that this really is standard fare in the SSPX. That is why, as you said earlier, Pope Benedict insists that they accept the ‘New Mass’ and to stop casting slurs on it. Here is an extract from Bishop Fellay’s sermon of November 11,2012 (that I have posted a while back on this thread) which shows that they all think alike on the subject - starting at the top!:

“Finally one other condition, which concerns the Mass this time. We must accept the validity of the new Mass, but not only its validity. We would have to accept also its liceity. We speak about validity when we ask, “does the thing exist?” A Mass that is celebrated validly means that Our Lord is there. We are not looking then at the circumstances in which this Mass is said. Thus a black Mass could be valid. It is horrible, it is a terrible sacrilege, but, alas, there are priests who celebrate what is called a black Mass. This Mass is valid. In citing this shocking example, you understand of course that that is not permitted, that is not licit because it is bad. “Licit” means permitted because it is good. We, however, we have observed the ravages caused by this new Mass, we have noted how it was made, for what purpose it was made, for the sake of ecumenism. And we see the results, the loss of the faith, the empty churches, and we say:** it is bad. This is how I replied to Rome. Usually we do not even speak about liceity, we simply say about this Mass that it is bad**. That is enough.”
sspx.org/superior_generals_news/bishop_fellay_sermon_extracts_paris_11-11-2012.htm

The SSPX is an institution. And it’s an institution that is telling the rest of the Catholic world, including other traditionalists that we’re all wrong and it’s right. It has assumed an air of authority over the rest of us. First of all, the SSPX has no canonical status. Secondly, the SSPX is not the Magisterium. Third, the SSPX’s approach is rather uppity.

All that and a bit more it seems from this sermon of Bishop Fellay’s November1, 2012, where he states that Ecclesia Dei was “sowing confusion” in their Declaration of October 29,12 when they said:
"The Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’ takes this occasion to announce that, in its most recent official communication (6 September 2012), the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X has indicated that additional time for reflection and study is needed on their part as they prepare their response to the Holy See’s latest initiatives.
http://www.visnews-en.blogspot.com/2012/10/declaration-of-pontifical-commission_29.html

Bishop Fellay says:
“Not long ago, we had a position statement from the President of * Ecclesia Dei*, who is at the same time the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, asserting that the discussions with the Society were over. And last Saturday, a new declaration from the * Ecclesia Dei* says: “No, we must allow them some time; it is understandable that after thirty years of debate they should need a certain amount of time; we do see that they have an ardent desire to be reconciled.” I have the impression that they have it more than we do. And we wonder: what is happening?
Obviously this is once again sowing confusion, but we must not allow ourselves to be troubled. We continue on our path. Quite simply. You have here, once again, a manifestation of the contradiction that is found in Rome. Why is there contradiction? Of course, because there are people who want to continue along the modern way, down the path of destruction, of demolition, and then you have others who are beginning to realize that that is not working and who wish us well. But can we put our trust in them? That depends on the circumstances; it is not enough to wish us well.
In all these discussions, I have arrived at the conclusion—and I think that this explains what is happening now—that the pope really, very seriously would like to recognize the Society. However the conditions that he sets are impossible for us. The conditions that are found in his letter are for us quite simply impossible.”

As I posted earlier, he is presently hard at work retracting any ‘deal with Rome’ and blamig anything he said contrary to their long standing position on “confusion” and “deception”. Bishop Williamson is putting him ‘on the spot’ in his latest newsletter (also posted earlier) by bringing attention to all his apparent contradictions.

 

[Dee_S]

You would be defiant if you violate the papal mandates or if you deny them their canonical rights. They do not have a canonical right to be trusted. You cannot mandate emotions unless you’re a religious superior speaking to your subordinates. Resentment and lack of trust are emotions. Only certain people in the Church have the authority to legislate emotions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I totally agree. Given their open defiance of Papal Authority, their entrenched attitude towards the Mass and their consistent hostility towards the council Vatican II - it would take some doing for their mindset to change.

To give an example. I personally know a catholic couple who had left the SSPX five years before, who decided to marry. The man refused to be married at a Nuptial Mass because of his deeply ingrained conviction that it was wrong to participate in a New Mass. Thankfully, over a period of time, he slowly lost his mistrust and fear of the Mass being a sacrilege and now accepts it is not bad.

There is a deeper layer that is not obvious to anyone who has never been on the inside. That is - the actual effects of the SSPX ‘resistance’ to the Pope etc on those pious folk who only came in search of reverence and tradition.

 

[RPRPsych]

This is a perfect example of something that is totally disrespectful. You don’t trash your confreres in the priesthood this way. If this were one of my men, I’d have his head. There would be another article apologizing.

Not to mention:

1. potentially misleading and frightening to a poorly catechized or easily swayed Catholic in a country where no “Traditional” priests are available, and…
2. potentially leading a soul to hell (I’m sorry, there’s no nice way of putting this), by “asking” the poor penitent to “make an act of perfect contrition” (it’s not that simple!) and “waiting to find a Traditional priest” (what if he’s disabled or dying?)

And these aren’t just hypotheticals; my mother spent years teaching Catholic Doctrine (Catechism) to college students, and she’d be the first to tell you that many students would look at such a statement and either:

1. stop going to confession and make “acts of perfect contrition”, or
2. defect to the nearest Assemblies of God or Church of South India congregation, who’ve been telling them that the Catholics have it wrong all along.

I admire your charitable responses, Brother, but the priest above is placing party spirit above the Church. He is not being alter Christus, and that is deplorable; more deplorable than any “liberation theology” or “clown Mass” priest.

 

[JReducation]

And even when that authority exists, it’s a limited context - The good friar as a superior can only legislate it for the brothers under his care, and only because it’s part of the vows the brothers took. In part, because the vows of friars place them under the total obedience of their superior in all things.

The SSPX isn’t bound to obedience in the same way. From SSPX.org: “The Society of St. Pius X is an international priestly society of common life without vows, whose purpose is the priesthood and that which pertains to it.”

Without vows, disobedience, while still sinful, is not damnable in the same way it would be for a Franciscan. And emotions are probably outside the bounds. (I couldn’t turn up their promises readily to check.)

I should clarify that even when a superior commands that a subordinate assume a different “emotional response,” he’s speaking only about external appearances and actions. I can no more command one of my brothers not to be angry than I can command the moon to move. However, I can command him to be diplomatic and discrete so that in his dealings with those who have triggered the anger, he does not upset the work of the Church and of the community. I have that power, because the Church has given superiors that authority as contained in Church doctrine on religious life and the vow of obedience.

Outside of religious, no one else makes this kind of vow of obedience. Even diocesan priests make a very specific promise of obedience. By specific I mean that they promise to obey pastoral commands, disciplinary laws, and policies. The promise of obedience does not bind them to change their life or their view of things because the pope or the bishop say so. The same applies to the lay faithful. The lay faithful must comply with the rules and the directives, but they don’t have to change how they feel. The pope cannot command that, because they are not bound to him that way. They are bound to comply with very specific choices and laws. The pope cannot command that everyone who has been offended or hurt by an SSPX priest or an SSPX statement forget their indignation and their lack of trust that it won’t happen again. To command such a thing would be to set people up for failure. In that case, the burden of sin would be on the pope. You can’t set people up for failure, if you can avoid it.

I totally agree. Given their open defiance of Papal Authority, their entrenched attitude towards the Mass and their consistent hostility towards the council Vatican II - it would take some doing for their mindset to change.

To give an example. I personally know a catholic couple who had left the SSPX five years before, who decided to marry. The man refused to be married at a Nuptial Mass because of his deeply ingrained conviction that it was wrong to participate in a New Mass. Thankfully, over a period of time, he slowly lost his mistrust and fear of the Mass being a sacrilege and now accepts it is not bad.

There is a deeper layer that is not obvious to anyone who has never been on the inside. That is - the actual effects of the SSPX ‘resistance’ to the Pope etc on those pious folk who only came in search of reverence and tradition.

Not to mention:

1. potentially misleading and frightening to a poorly catechized or easily swayed Catholic in a country where no “Traditional” priests are available, and…
2. potentially leading a soul to hell (I’m sorry, there’s no nice way of putting this), by “asking” the poor penitent to “make an act of perfect contrition” (it’s not that simple!) and “waiting to find a Traditional priest” (what if he’s disabled or dying?)

And these aren’t just hypotheticals; my mother spent years teaching Catholic Doctrine (Catechism) to college students, and she’d be the first to tell you that many students would look at such a statement and either:

1. stop going to confession and make “acts of perfect contrition”, or
2. defect to the nearest Assemblies of God or Church of South India congregation, who’ve been telling them that the Catholics have it wrong all along.

I admire your charitable responses, Brother, but the priest above is placing party spirit above the Church. He is not being alter Christus, and that is deplorable; more deplorable than any “liberation theology” or “clown Mass” priest.

The problem with these statements is that there seems to be two perspectives in reading what is being said. When I read what the CDF said about more time, I did not take it to mean that the CDF was asking for more dialogue. Being a traditionalist myself, I strung the beads together. My conclusion was. “There is no more dialogue . . . now we give the SSPX whatever time it needs to respond to our final offer.” To me, this is crystal clear, not confusing at all.

The good bishop read it differently. I have to trust his good will and simply say that being the case that he is a bishop and an intelligent man, I must have missed something that he caught. I wish he would clarify, because I still don’t see the confusion and am sure that others do not see it either.

Rome is certainly waiting for a response, on paper, not via the internet or some periodical. Such a response has not been delivered to the Holy See. As far as the Vatican is concerned, the SSPX’s final answer has not arrived. It’s like going to court. Until the jury delivers the verdict to the judge himself, the judge cannot assume anything based on what he reads or hears.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I admire your charitable responses, Brother, but the priest above is placing party spirit above the Church. He is not being alter Christus,

Alter Christus doesn’t refer to one’s morality (or lack thereof), nor does it refer to whether or not one is beint partisan or not. It refers to the priest during Mass. The Borgias Popes, while deplorable in morality, were “Alter Christus” (not to mention Vicars of Christ).

and that is deplorable; more deplorable than any “liberation theology” or “clown Mass” priest.

I’m not so sure about this. Liberation Theology was VERY partisan. You should read the history of the Church in Nicaragua (especially the Jesuits there). Talk about putting the party (in that case, the communist/socialist party) ahead of the Church. Liberal organization are just as guilty (if not more so) of this mentality as the SSPX. The LCWR is doing the same thing.

Perhaps one reason why the SSPX upset certain people is because beyond their rhetorical excesses, they do point out some real issues going on in the Church. We all know it – the liberal excesses of the post Vatican II period were very damaging to the Church. While the SSPX may not offer the correct solution, their dissatisfaction seems to be rooted in truth.

Please note: Yes, I attend an SSPX chapel, but I am not an SSPX partisan. I do not believe their claims about the OF Mass. I do not confess there, either. The priest at the chapel has never said anything negative during Mass. He simply teaches Catholic doctrine.

• PAX