SSPX update?

[GloriaMaria]

Your response is very generous and very humbling. Please pray for my soul. I too struggle with spiritual battles.

I will continue to pray that the Society comes home, that it’s talents, knowledge and experience will give the rest of us the boost that we need and that it will be open to receive what we have to offer in return. It is only through fraternal sharing that one reaches the perfection of love. As St. John says, “God is love.” There’s the map to God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:

I offered my Mass for you today. God Bless You.

 

[GloriaMaria]

GloriaMaria and GiuseppeTO, I"m wondering if you would care to conjecture on what, in your informal assessment, the general feeling of the SSPX faithful is? I know that the only way to find out with some degree of accuracy would be to do a formal study, such as a survey with an adequate sample size. However I’m wondering what your opinion would be as to whether some or most of those who regularly assist at the SSPX Immemorial Mass would welcome full reconciliation with Rome?

I attended the SSPX Chapel today. I had trouble finding the entrance to the nave proper and found myself in the cry room, at first. The only thing I noted there was a large image of Blessed John Paul II. Clearly, at least in that chapel, he isn’t regarded as an anti-pope.

My answer is different than GiusseppeTO. In the large mission territory that I have been a part of in recent years the priest has stated that he feels the only way that Rome will “come to Her senses” is when the Immaculate Heart of Mary has her triumph. He also feels that an agreement would lead to some sort of compromise, like he would be asked to concelebrate the New Mass. The others who assist at the Mass offered by the SSPX I can’t speak directly for, but I have heard statements such as “I think they’ve fallen away” when in reference to people who would go to the diocesan Mass. I hope it is different in other locations.

GiusseppeTO as a handle, indicates that the poster is a Third Order member of the SSPX. They are required to confess it as a sin, if they do attend a “New Mass”. So, I am not sure how that reconciles with the concept of welcoming a full reconciliation. Perhaps GiusseppeTO could address that?

As for the picture of JPII, I have noticed somewhere in all of the SSPX chapels (or at least in the hall in which you meet for sandwiches) that I have visited, there is a photo of the Holy Father - the current one Pope Benedict XVI. The SSPX state that they recognize the Holy Father.

 

[JReducation]

I offered my Mass for you today. God Bless You.

Your prayers worked. I made a very good confession and feel spiritually rejuvenated and ready for Christmas. Thank you.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:

 

[Dee_S]

My answer is different than GiusseppeTO. In the large mission territory that I have been a part of in recent years the priest has stated that he feels the only way that Rome will “come to Her senses” is when the Immaculate Heart of Mary has her triumph. He also feels that an agreement would lead to some sort of compromise, like he would be asked to concelebrate the New Mass. The others who assist at the Mass offered by the SSPX I can’t speak directly for, but I have heard statements such as “I think they’ve fallen away” when in reference to people who would go to the diocesan Mass. I hope it is different in other locations.

GiusseppeTO as a handle, indicates that the poster is a Third Order member of the SSPX. They are required to confess it as a sin, if they do attend a “New Mass”. So, I am not sure how that reconciles with the concept of welcoming a full reconciliation. Perhaps GiusseppeTO could address that?

As for the picture of JPII, I have noticed somewhere in all of the SSPX chapels (or at least in the hall in which you meet for sandwiches) that I have visited, there is a photo of the Holy Father - the current one Pope Benedict XVI. The SSPX state that they recognize the Holy Father.

:thumbsup:my experience too! In fact, I’m getting goosebumps at your words “I think they’ve fallen away”. Most of my pain and confusion (when I was forced to cross “the great divide” due to there being no SSPX mass where I moved to) was caused by this very condemnation.

When I first started attending the New Mass, I would be sitting in the pews bewildered and scared, mentally considering mostly how all the SSPX priests I knew (never mind my old friends & the godparents of my children)and loved would view what I was doing. How genuinely heart-sore they would be to know that I was there, that according to how they taught, I was risking and endangering my soul and faith. Many tears flowed for many months. What kept me going back, time & again, despite all, was that I knew I was safely back in the Church, where I belonged, and no matter how alien or foreign to me this Mass was, that it had God’s blessing.

 

[Dee_S]

Everything that has been said above is quite accurate. I would add to what has been said two points.

**First, **the statement on the “myth of the Eternal Rome” is not just one scholar’s analysis. This is being discussed at almost every pontifical school of theology where the SSPX issue is discussed. There are many reasons why very orthodox schools of theology reject this image of the “Eternal Rome”. Christ does not institute an abstract to lead his Church. He installs a human being, a pope, a fisherman named Simon. It is upon the faith of Simon the Rock (Peter) whom he said he would build his Church. Today, the Chair of Peter is occupied. The Catholic faith is built upon the faith of Peter.

Yes, there is a Rome. She is the mother of all Churches. Is she eternal? No. Like all things, she is finite. At the end of time, she will cease to exist. Does Peter draw his authority from the Church of Rome or does the Church of Rome draw its primacy from the primacy of Peter? The case seems to be the latter. The See of Peter and the Church existed long before there was a Roman Church.

If one says that “Eternal Rome” refers to the Magisterium of all the popes from Peter to Pius XII, then Rome is not so eternal. It appears to have expired along with Pope Pius. In order for Rome to be eternal, the See of Peter must be eternal. The See of Peter only has authority when it is occupied.

If if the See of Peter is vacant, then the papacy has been interrupted. This happens all the time. Whenever a pope dies the See of Peter comes to a complete stop. If Eternal Rome could function without Peter, there would be no need to replace him. When we look at what happens when a pope dies, it tells us that Eternal Rome is dependent on the Magisterium of Peter. When a pope dies, everything comes to a stop. No decisions can be made, not even policy decisions, much less statements on matters of faith and morals. Only the bare minimum to keep the Church operating until the next pope is elected can happen. Even appointments cease to exist. People in certain offices hold those offices until the new election, but they cannot do anything authoritative, because there is pope to sign off on it.

When we examine the fact that the Church is built on the faith of Peter, not on the faith of Rome, that the authority of Peter to teach and govern is transmitted from generation to generation, that the Church of Rome derives its primacy among all of the Catholic Churches from the primacy of Peter, not the other way around (Peter can be in France and he’s still pope), and when we look at what happens when a pope dies, we can see that Eternal Rome is dependent on an Eternal Magisterium that is alive, not one that died in 1958 with Pope Pius XII.

The **second point **that I want to make is that the future of the SSPX is hanging by a thread. We have to pray very hard. No one lives forever. The three bishops left in the SSPX will not live forever. They will need to be replaced or their offices handed over to priests in the Society. If they decide to ordain another bishop to secure the continuity of the SSPX, it’s game over. They will be excommunicated for schism. It will no longer be just a schismatic act.

A schismatic act is an isolated act that creates a chasm between you and the pope. When all things are considered, there is no indication that you’re trying to separate yourself from the Holy See. If after all of these discussions and offers from the Holy See they proceed to ordain another bishop, the question that will be asked is, “Why?” Once you say that you did so in order to secure continuity, you have said that you are creating an apostolic line of succession parallel to the papacy. This is what happened during the great schism, but in greater numbers. They secured their apostolic succession by ordaining valid bishops of like mind, but not bishops who were in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Let’s keep them in prayer. As things stand right now, the CDF has said that it will no longer discuss anything with the SSPX. It’s waiting for the SSPX do decide to come home. To the credit of the CDF, they recognize that these transitions take time. The people in the SSPX are not charlatans. They are honest men. They are convicted of what they believe about the post conciliar Church, even though their beliefs have been called into question by three popes. These men need time to think and pray over this. We should never ask anyone to do something that will affect his soul without giving him the time and space to pray.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:

:tiphat:thank you Br JR, for this very comprehensive summary. Two extracts from**:**

**DECLARATION OF THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION “ECCLESIA DEI” **
October 2912

"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.

“At the present time, the Holy See is awaiting the official response of the superiors of the Priestly Fraternity to these two documents. After thirty years of separation, it is understandable that time is needed to absorb the significance of these recent developments. As Our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI seeks to foster and preserve the unity of the Church by realising the long hoped-for reconciliation of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X with the See of Peter - a dramatic manifestation of the ‘munus Petrinum’ in action - patience, serenity, perseverance and trust are needed”.
visnews-en.blogspot.com/2012/10/declaration-of-pontifical-commission_29.html

 

[giuseppeTO]

It is not possible to be partially '“faithful”, either one is in “full communion” or one is not.

The SSPX makes just this claim, using the ‘Eternal Rome’ justification - here are some extracts from an excellent article by Dr Mirus of Catholic Culture which exposes and debunks this dangerous myth:
Eternal Rome vs. the Magisterium: A Contemporary Myth

"One may still hope that the Society of Saint Pius X will seek to return to full communion with the Catholic Church. Bishop Bernard Fellay’s comments following the General Chapter of the Society could indicate acceptance of an arrangement similar to that of the Fraternity of St. Peter, or they could indicate a continuing insistence on every aspect of their current identity, including the SSPX rejection of the Magisterium of the Second Vatican Council and the modern papacy (which would make full communion impossible).** But there is one very dangerous expression in these remarks which puts clearly on display a myth often perpetuated by Traditionalists—a myth which must be exploded if authentic reconciliation is to be achieved**. Let us call this the myth of “eternal Rome”.

“Bishop Fellay states: “It is not us [sic] who will break with Rome, the Eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.” But of course** the SSPX has already broken with Rome through a refusal of obedience, including the consecration of bishops without the consent of the Holy Father. And the reason for this breach is the myth which Traditionalists have concocted of “eternal Rome”**. Another name for this myth is “perennial doctrine” or “perennial teaching”.”

"I call this a myth because it is used by Traditionalists generally to create a false dichotomy between “eternal Rome” and the authority of the Magisterium today, or between “perennial doctrine” and what the Magisterium has taught since, say, 1960. The myth says that there can be a difference between these two things, and that the former is the rule of faith. But the truth is that there can be no difference between these two things, and that a proper understanding of the Catholic faith is achieved only by obedience to all of the relevant statements of the Magisterium of all times, including our own times."

“The key principle is simply this: The
Faith is unique among all religions in that it contains within it a divinely guaranteed principle of authority, namely the Magisterium of the successors of Peter, and their universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. Against this authority, which comes from God Himself, it is impossible to appeal. And it is precisely her possession of this authority which makes Catholicism unique among all religions, the only faith which is guaranteed by God Himself to be true.”

"Moreover, a corollary is equally clear: Those who reject the Magisterium in their own time, when it is teaching about the questions with which they themselves are intimately engaged, in fact reject the Magisterium whole and entire, the Magisterium of every age, the authority of Christ himself."
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=541

dee -
by your definition most Catholics would not be in communion with the Holy Father

 

[giuseppeTO]

My answer is different than GiusseppeTO. In the large mission territory that I have been a part of in recent years the priest has stated that he feels the only way that Rome will “come to Her senses” is when the Immaculate Heart of Mary has her triumph. He also feels that an agreement would lead to some sort of compromise, like he would be asked to concelebrate the New Mass. The others who assist at the Mass offered by the SSPX I can’t speak directly for, but I have heard statements such as “I think they’ve fallen away” when in reference to people who would go to the diocesan Mass. I hope it is different in other locations.

GiusseppeTO as a handle, indicates that the poster is a Third Order member of the SSPX. They are required to confess it as a sin, if they do attend a “New Mass”. So, I am not sure how that reconciles with the concept of welcoming a full reconciliation. Perhaps GiusseppeTO could address that?

As for the picture of JPII, I have noticed somewhere in all of the SSPX chapels (or at least in the hall in which you meet for sandwiches) that I have visited, there is a photo of the Holy Father - the current one Pope Benedict XVI. The SSPX state that they recognize the Holy Father.

there’s no place in the third order rules or promises that specifies attendance at the new mass to be a sin that needs to be confessed.

for instance I take my mother to the OF when I’m visiting her but have no need to confess is a sin

 

[Melchior_1]

dee -
by your definition most Catholics would not be in communion with the Holy Father

There are individuals, yes. But in the case of the SSPX it’s a wholesale group who lack the full communion.

Members of the SSPX can’t exactly see SSPX for confession(s) either, so that makes the lack of full communion a bit more awkward.

 

[RPRPsych]

dee -
by your definition most Catholics would not be in communion with the Holy Father

I’m sorry, but that’s an absurdity.

How can anyone presume to know the spiritual and mental states of “most Catholics”?

What about the Catholics of Asia and Africa, or even in other parts of the world?

What about the pilgrims at Lourdes and Fatima?

Seriously. “Catholic” means “universal”. “Catholic” does not end with Father X down the road who has a clown Mass, or Ms. Y next door who voted Obama. “Catholic” is the agricultural labourer who climbs up a hill to make a local pilgrimage, despite the hostility of those of other faiths. “Catholic” is the missionary nun who lives out the Gospel in the most practical way possible. “Catholic” is the grieving family, who have lost a loved one, and offer Masses for his soul. “Catholic” is the little child who was baptised a few days ago.

Do not presume to speak for the whole community of believers.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I’m sorry, but that’s an absurdity.

How can anyone presume to know the spiritual and mental states of “most Catholics”?

What about the Catholics of Asia and Africa, or even in other parts of the world?

What about the pilgrims at Lourdes and Fatima?

Seriously. “Catholic” means “universal”. “Catholic” does not end with Father X down the road who has a clown Mass, or Ms. Y next door who voted Obama. “Catholic” is the agricultural labourer who climbs up a hill to make a local pilgrimage, despite the hostility of those of other faiths. “Catholic” is the missionary nun who lives out the Gospel in the most practical way possible. “Catholic” is the grieving family, who have lost a loved one, and offer Masses for his soul. “Catholic” is the little child who was baptised a few days ago.

Do not presume to speak for the whole community of believers.

This is what I based my comment on. I speak for no one. The statistics are from both the Catholic Church and Pew:

45% of Catholics favor gay marriage
12% of Catholics believe that homosexuality is not immoral
33% of Catholics believe that abortion should be legal in all cases
85% of Catholics born since Vatican II do not attend Mass weekly
43% of Catholics support fetal stem cell research
59% of Catholics favor the ordination of women
9% of Catholics do not believe in the True Presence

All of these people have beliefs that separate them from the Pope. Yet all are in canonical regularity with him.

SO my comment was not based on my ability to read consciences or souls. But on the statistics published primarily by the church (OCD).

 

[RPRPsych]

This is what I based my comment on. I speak for no one. The statistics are from both the Catholic Church and Pew:

45% of Catholics favor gay marriage
12% of Catholics believe that homosexuality is not immoral
33% of Catholics believe that abortion should be legal in all cases
85% of Catholics born since Vatican II do not attend Mass weekly
43% of Catholics support fetal stem cell research
59% of Catholics favor the ordination of women
9% of Catholics do not believe in the True Presence

All of these people have beliefs that separate them from the Pope. Yet all are in canonical regularity with him.

SO my comment was not based on my ability to read consciences or souls. But on the statistics published primarily by the church (OCD).

Well, you know the old saying: Statistics are a good servant, but a bad master.

I find some of those figures hard to believe from where I sit. These look like “hot spot” issues for Western Catholics. But the majority of Catholics do not reside in the West. So generalizing these figures (which I suspect are from the U.S.) to Catholics all over the world is inaccurate.

Plus, polls often have sampling and other biases that make their findings questionable. To quote another old saying, the devil is in the details.

Believe me, I’m as concerned about the above issues as you are. But sweeping generalizations (“most Catholics”) are not very helpful, and worsen the divide between men of good faith.

 

[JReducation]

This is what I based my comment on. I speak for no one. The statistics are from both the Catholic Church and Pew:

45% of Catholics favor gay marriage
12% of Catholics believe that homosexuality is not immoral
33% of Catholics believe that abortion should be legal in all cases
85% of Catholics born since Vatican II do not attend Mass weekly
43% of Catholics support fetal stem cell research
59% of Catholics favor the ordination of women
9% of Catholics do not believe in the True Presence

All of these people have beliefs that separate them from the Pope. Yet all are in canonical regularity with him.

SO my comment was not based on my ability to read consciences or souls. But on the statistics published primarily by the church (OCD).

They are all in full communion with the Church for two reasons.

Reason 1: There is nothing in Canon Law against any of these. The closest would be abortion. To be excommunicated, one would have to know that the penalty is excommunication and proceed to complete an abortion or facilitate a complete abortion.

Reason 2: The pope gets to decide how Canon Law is applied and to whom it is applied. This was the case with Archbisohp Lefebvre when he appealed to Pope John Paul arguing that Canon Law allowed for the ordination of bishops in case of emergency, even if the emergency was perceived. Pope John Paul’s response what a flat and simple, “I declare that the law does not apply to you. There will be no appeal.” This is in the context of a longer letter in which he explains that the law does not apply, because he had already told the Archbishop that there was no state of emergency. The point is that the pope can apply Canon Law as he sees fit and we have no appeal and no choice but to accept it.

There is another issue here. The point is never about being in communion with the pope. It’s always about being in communion with the Church. The pope decides the criteria for communion. In this regard, we must be in communion with the primacy. The moment that we start to create our own criteria for communion with the Church, we have chaos. One billion Catholics cannot have individual criteria for communion.

Therefore, Peter sets the CRITERIA FOR COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH.

In the cases that you listed above, none are mentioned in Canon Law. Communion with the Church is regulated by Canon Law. We can say that these individuals are out of compliance in specific areas or dissenting in other areas. One can be out of compliance or once can dissent without violating Canon Law. It’s not ideal and should be avoided. I’m just trying to clarify where communion with the Church comes from. It’s from the law, not the action.

Just as every person who commits a felony is not a traitor, every person who commits a grave sin or supports a grave sin is not out of communion. In both cases, the law makes no such statements. There must be a specific law that says that if you do X, you’re out of communion. If it’s not in the canons, then it must come from the pope himself or one of dicastries who speak in his name.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1

 

[Faithdancer]

In reference to GiuseppeTO’s statistics- the number 9% for Catholics who do not believe in transsubstantiation is far too low- perhaps he meant 9% of US Catholics do believe in the Real Presence? That number would be closer to the truth.

Additionally, over 70% of self-described US Catholics make the Sacrament of Reconciliation once a year or less. This is from the CARA study at Fordham U.

Whether or not the distressing statistics can be dismissed as only applying to the US and Western Europe does not mean that the worldwide Church is not in great peril from the “cafeteria” approach to Catholicism and the ignorance of basic Catholic dogma.

 

[GloriaMaria]

there’s no place in the third order rules or promises that specifies attendance at the new mass to be a sin that needs to be confessed.

for instance I take my mother to the OF when I’m visiting her but have no need to confess is a sin

Taken from the SSPX handbook entitled “Christian Warfare”:

Under “Personal Obligations - Weekly” - (of Third Order members) - “Attendance at the immemorial Mass and not the Novus Ordo**, because of the danger of acquiring a Protestant spirit.”

In the same book: Examination of Conscience - Third Commandment “Have you attended and actively participated in the New Mass? Have you received Holy Communion in the hand?”

These are direct quotes from the widely distributed handbook. But perhaps you were unaware of the duties expected of you as a Third Order member? You should look at it more closely.

 

[Melchior_1]

Taken from the SSPX handbook entitled “Christian Warfare”:

Under “Personal Obligations - Weekly” - (of Third Order members) - “Attendance at the immemorial Mass and not the Novus Ordo**, because of the danger of acquiring a Protestant spirit.”

In the same book: Examination of Conscience - Third Commandment “Have you attended and actively participated in the New Mass? Have you received Holy Communion in the hand?”

These are direct quotes from the widely distributed handbook. But perhaps you were unaware of the duties expected of you as a Third Order member? You should look at it more closely.

You can view some of the SSPX Third Order’s Rule right here.

Other fun facts;

*1. The commercial television (with the antenna, its programmes and advertisements) is completely prohibited.

1. Attendance at the movies shown in cinemas is prohibited.*

 

[JReducation]

You can view some of the SSPX Third Order’s Rule right here.

Other fun facts;

*1. The commercial television (with the antenna, its programmes and advertisements) is completely prohibited.

1. Attendance at the movies shown in cinemas is prohibited.*

I wouldn’t refer to them as “fun” because that would be rude to do so. But I certainly find them a little odd, I guess is the word that I can best use, unless they’re speaking about movies that are objectionable. Not all movies are. I love Harry Potter and everything Star Trek.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:

 

[Boulder257]

You can view some of the SSPX Third Order’s Rule right here.

Other fun facts;

*1. The commercial television (with the antenna, its programmes and advertisements) is completely prohibited.

1. Attendance at the movies shown in cinemas is prohibited.*

Is this even an “actual” third order? Do they have a place in the Church? What I mean is, they were established by excommunicated bishops and suspended priests. Somehow, I can’t imagine they have the authority to create a third order. I’ll plead ignorance of canonical law on this one because I truly have no idea, so please, someone correct me if I am missing something here.

 

[RPRPsych]

You can view some of the SSPX Third Order’s Rule right here.

Other fun facts;

I like your choice of words.

1. The commercial television (with the antenna, its programmes and advertisements) is completely prohibited.

That’s actually a very, very easy one for me, because I’ve been a “verbal” rather than a “visual” guy from childhood; I actually prefer reading scripts to watching most movies or serials. Maybe I should try this Third Order stuff.

3. Attendance at the movies shown in cinemas is prohibited.

Aww, even if it’s “The Passion of the Christ”?

And their “New Mass = Protestant” is quite absurd.

 

[Lormar]

:thumbsup:my experience too! In fact, I’m getting goosebumps at your words “I think they’ve fallen away”. Most of my pain and confusion (when I was forced to cross “the great divide” due to there being no SSPX mass where I moved to) was caused by this very condemnation.

When I first started attending the New Mass, I would be sitting in the pews bewildered and scared, mentally considering mostly how all the SSPX priests I knew (never mind my old friends & the godparents of my children)and loved would view what I was doing. How genuinely heart-sore they would be to know that I was there, that according to how they taught, I was risking and endangering my soul and faith. Many tears flowed for many months. What kept me going back, time & again, despite all, was that I knew I was safely back in the Church, where I belonged, and no matter how alien or foreign to me this Mass was, that it had God’s blessing.

Dee, I relate completely to what you have written. I still sit in the pews afraid that I am endangering my faith. Only someone that has walked in our shoes for an extended length of time can know what we have experienced and what someone goes through once they return to the Church.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

The three bishops left in the SSPX will not live forever. They will need to be replaced or their offices handed over to priests in the Society. If they decide to ordain another bishop to secure the continuity of the SSPX, it’s game over. They will be excommunicated for schism. It will no longer be just a schismatic act.

I offer that it is a bit presumptuous to state what the Pope will do in a hypothetical future situation concerning the SSPX and perhaps we should refrain from declaring who the Pope will decide is or is not a schismatic.

Let’s keep them in prayer. As things stand right now, the CDF has said that it will no longer discuss anything with the SSPX. It’s waiting for the SSPX do decide to come home. To the credit of the CDF, they recognize that these transitions take time. The people in the SSPX are not charlatans. They are honest men. They are convicted of what they believe about the post conciliar Church, even though their beliefs have been called into question by three popes. These men need time to think and pray over this. We should never ask anyone to do something that will affect his soul without giving him the time and space to pray.

A wise reminder.

• PAX