SSPX update?

[Moore11]

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.

Where do the majority of Catholics reside?
Do you have any other statistics or do you not like them because they don’t paint a pretty picture.

 

[giuseppeTO]

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.

I’m familiar with the admonissions concerning the new mass in the handbook. the issue in the examination of conscience is keeping to the promises of the third order.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Where do the majority of Catholics reside?
Do you have any other statistics or do you not like them because they don’t paint a pretty picture.

The majority of Catholics do not reside in the US. The shift has been happening - growth in the Southern Hemisphere, and a decline in the Northern/Western Hemispheres. It would be interesting to know where the surveys were done to create those statistics. If they are US only numbers than they can’t be extropolated to the world.

 

[JReducation]

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.

That’s a very good question. Third Orders come in two forms.

1. They can be public associations of the secular faithful that are part of a religious order, such as the Lay Dominicans and Order of Discalced Carmelites Secular.
2. They can also be public associations of the secular faithful that are autonomous, but follow the rule of a given founder, such as the Secular Franciscans. They are not part of the friars, they were founded by Francis and he wrote a different rule for them and left them to run themselves.

In both cases, their status and statutes must be approved by the Sacred Congregation for Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. The other way to function is to have the approval of the local diocesan bishop. In that case, the particular third order is a diocesan association of the secular faithful.

To have canonical status in the Church it’s profession (promises, vows or other form of commitment) must be approved by Rome or by the local bishop. Even if the members are making private vows, the local bishop must approve them.

There is law in the canons that allows the faithful to form organizations and associations on their own for the good of the Church. This could be applied to this community. However, there is another canon that says that no organization or association can use the name Catholic without the permission of the local bishop. On December 10 and amendment to Canon Law kicked in. This is about 10 new statutes that Pope Benedict has added to Canon Law. They concern charitable works. One of those says that no charitable work may call itself Catholic without the consent of the local bishop.

There is definitely room in Canon Law for these Catholics to form an association and call it whatever they want. They are not a third order until their statutes are approved by either the Sacred Congregation or by the local bishop. Until such time, they remain a private association. This is fine. This is allowed. However, they cannot publicly use the name Catholic until they have permission from a bishop who has the authority to grant such permission. Even an auxiliary bishop does not have such authority. Only the Ordinary of the diocese does.

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.

• PAX

It’s not presumptuous at all, since that’s the law. When one violates a law that carries a specific penalty, the pope does not have to do anything. The penalty is activated by the person violating the law.

Since there is a law about ordaining bishops without a papal mandate and there is a law about intentionally breaking communion with the Bishop of Rome, should they choose to ordain a bishop without such a mandate, the excommunication takes place automatically.

We can’t forget that they were warned by the Holy See that if they did not come into full communion with the Holy See there could be a break that would do incalculable damage and that it would be their fault, not the Vatican’s fault. I can’t recall the exact wording of the sentence, but people probably remember this statement issued by the Holy See.

To respond to your statement, it’s not presumption. It’s knowledge of the law. Unless the Holy Father changes the law or dispenses them from the law, we can only operate by speaking from the law as it is right now. Therefore, we can say that if they ordain another bishop without a papal mandate they will be excommunicated and they will be in schism.

Even though we may like the SSPX, we must be very careful not to assume canonical exceptions for them that are not in the books. Canonical exceptions only exist when the reigning pope says so, such as the Jesuits. They’re exempt from almost every canon that has to do with religious life, but they’re a very special order and these exceptions were negotiated by St. Ignatius. The SSPX has not negotiated any exceptions, yet. Until they do, we can safely speak from Canon Law.

However, I will warn this. One must make sure that one understands the tradition of Canon Law. Just reading the law is not enough. Canon Law often means more than what it says. There are points that are not in writing, but are in the mind of the person who wrote the law. One must know about these. That’s how the commentaries and courses come in helpful.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:

 

[giuseppeTO]

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.

Technically speaking, it would only be the clergy since the laity were and are not excommunicated.

 

[giuseppeTO]

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.

The statistics are for the U.S. Statistically, about 5% of French Catholics attend Mass every Sunday. So they are in much worse shape than the U.S.

 

[giuseppeTO]

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

BroJ-

I am in agreement with your points. This side discussion stemmed from your comment about being very faithful to the Holy Father. My lament was that the situation concerning the Society stems from a canonical irregularity. If the statistics that the Catholic Church has issued concerning the faith in the U.S., and seemingly corroborated by secular studies by the likes of the Pew Foundation, point to the fact that all American Catholics are in “full communion” with the Pope yet are not faithful to him in large numbers (and by extension the church) because they hold (in many cases in a public fashion) positions contrary to at least the moral dictates of the last six Popes if not some dogmatic issues like the True Presence. So my wish is that being in “full communion” with the Pope meant more than the juridic situation it currently represents since it is plain that many in “full communion” are opposed to the teachings of this and previous Popes on a wide range of issues.

I believe this is at least part of the reason the SSPX has been able to accept the lack of canonical regularity. The alternative is certainly desirable but not necessarily indicative of fidelity to the Magisterium.

It would be interesting if all clergy, Bishops, and laity throughout the Catholic world were required to sign a sort of preamble to pledge their acceptance and loyalty to all of the moral teachings of the Popes or risk “irregularity”.

 

[pnewton]

I think we all should just make up our own statistics based on how we feel. Perhaps we can use Wikipedia as a source for our feeltistics. I think it would be as useful as most of the statistics I have seen posted here. On should never, ever look at a study without question the* why* of the study. Then look at the methodology. The majority of statistics I have seen quoted on CAF leave out some key component the reveals the motivation of the poster or the on doing the study.

 

[RPRPsych]

Where do the majority of Catholics reside?

Outside Europe and the U.S. The figures that Giuseppe posted are from the U.S., as he mentions later in the thread.

Do you have any other statistics or do you not like them because they don’t paint a pretty picture.

I don’t have any other statistics, sorry. But I do know that to try and judge my fellow men solely on the basis of statistics is not something to be done lightly.

 

[Moore11]

Outside Europe and the U.S. The figures that Giuseppe posted are from the U.S., as he mentions later in the thread.

I don’t have any other statistics, sorry. But I do know that to try and judge my fellow men solely on the basis of statistics is not something to be done lightly.

You said the “west” Europe, the US possibly South America, Canada, would probably be “the west” as in western society. Europe’s statistics are actually worse than the US. You said the poster was making an “absurdity” and yet you say that the statistics mean nothing to you. You then drop back to the old defense of not “Judging” based on statistics.

My point is this. If you dont agree, fine. If you want to make an argument using your own facts, fine. If you want to have vague definitions as to what “most” Catholics are not using some definitions of the “west” known only to you that is not fine. Don’t call others absurd and then throw data out the window while saying others should not “judge” using statistics.

Tell me what do you think "most Catholics believe about the issues posted?

Here is the deal.
The state of the average Catholic is dire indeed. The SSPX would have you believe it is VII’s and the “modernists” fault. Others want to pretend nothing is wrong. Both are wrong.
As Br JR pointed out earlier sometimes other orders can take the SSPX’s criticism personally. But sometimes the opposite effect is to dismiss their criticism entirely.

I’ll tell you this: It will take way more than the “SSPX” to fix what ails the Church and it is important to know that in some ways the Church is stronger. Benedict XVI himself has noted how the Church needs to learn that it could be a little smaller and still be stronger than ever.

The SSPX thinks they are stronger and able to have more of a voice and impact outside the Church. They are dead wrong. Some in the Church think they make no difference whatsoever and could care less. They are dead wrong as well. We should not only be praying for the SSPX to rejoin but our hearts should ache that they have not.

I dont mean to be harsh.
Obviously you live in an area that is fortunate and healthy for the Church. Some of us do not. You should be thankful that you are in a situation that those statistics are easy for you to dismiss. Some of us are in the middle of the progressive battlefield and we are losing. It saddens us that the SSPX who are on the right side of many issues are not able to be part of the allied powers and have chosen to be axis.

 

[Moore11]

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.*

Looking at that site for Australia. Aside from the very problematic view on the OF, the third order rule seems actually like something we all could use. And is actually quite tame compared to some third orders I have seen.
I dont think it is healthy to pull a dan brown on the SSPX like he did with Opus Dei.
Not watching jersey Shore and the Hangover would probably benefit most of modern society.

As a side note the SSPX, seem to always nuance their positions just short of heresy. Using maybe just one or two qualifier words. They do not call he OF protestant but do say there is a danger of a protestant mentality. That has to be the most aggravating thing to the Vatican…
I wish they would not do that. However, I have been to many many masses that would make a Lutheran say that was too protestant.

 

[Moore11]

I think we all should just make up our own statistics based on how we feel. Perhaps we can use Wikipedia as a source for our feeltistics. I think it would be as useful as most of the statistics I have seen posted here. On should never, ever look at a study without question the* why* of the study. Then look at the methodology. The majority of statistics I have seen quoted on CAF leave out some key component the reveals the motivation of the poster or the on doing the study.

You are 100 percent right!
But 99 percent will disagree with you.

 

[RPRPsych]

You said the “west” Europe, the US possibly South America, Canada, would probably be “the west” as in western society. Europe’s statistics are actually worse than the US. You said the poster was making an “absurdity” and yet you say that the statistics mean nothing to you. You then drop back to the old defense of not “Judging” based on statistics.

Sorry if I did not make my meaning clear. What I meant was that these issues, while of key importance in the West, hardly appear on the radar in other cultures. For concrete examples, gay marriage and abortion are already against the “traditional” culture, and few Catholics would endorse them. I didn’t mean to sound dismissive, apologies again.

I’ll tell you this: It will take way more than the “SSPX” to fix what ails the Church and it is important to know that in some ways the Church is stronger. Benedict XVI himself has noted how the Church needs to learn that it could be a little smaller and still be stronger than ever.

The SSPX thinks they are stronger and able to have more of a voice and impact outside the Church. They are dead wrong. Some in the Church think they make no difference whatsoever and could care less. They are dead wrong as well. We should not only be praying for the SSPX to rejoin but our hearts should ache that they have not.

I dont mean to be harsh.
Obviously you live in an area that is fortunate and healthy for the Church. Some of us do not. You should be thankful that you are in a situation that those statistics are easy for you to dismiss. Some of us are in the middle of the progressive battlefield and we are losing. It saddens us that the SSPX who are on the right side of many issues are not able to be part of the allied powers and have chosen to be axis.

I fully agree with you on this. We may actually be on the same side. I fully agree that the Church is facing serious troubles, and that the SSPX could do more good on the inside than on the outside. All we can do is pray for this.

 

[ProVobis]

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 it okay if it’s a black and white set or black and white movie, like they had before Vatican II?

 

[Moore11]

Sorry if I did not make my meaning clear. What I meant was that these issues, while of key importance in the West, hardly appear on the radar in other cultures. For concrete examples, gay marriage and abortion are already against the “traditional” culture, and few Catholics would endorse them. I didn’t mean to sound dismissive, apologies again.

I fully agree with you on this. We may actually be on the same side. I fully agree that the Church is facing serious troubles, and that the SSPX could do more good on the inside than on the outside. All we can do is pray for this.

No problem. Of course we are on the same side! We are on the Catholic side!

 

[RPRPsych]

No problem. Of course we are on the same side! We are on the Catholic side!

Well said.

And if I might make a confession, I’d actually prefer a Latin Mass (though I’ve never attended one) over the dissonance of our usual vernacular Masses.

 

[JReducation]

BroJ-

I am in agreement with your points. This side discussion stemmed from your comment about being very faithful to the Holy Father. My lament was that the situation concerning the Society stems from a canonical irregularity.

So my wish is that being in “full communion” with the Pope meant more than the juridic situation it currently represents since it is plain that many in “full communion” are opposed to the teachings of this and previous Popes on a wide range of issues.

It would be interesting if all clergy, Bishops, and laity throughout the Catholic world were required to sign a sort of preamble to pledge their acceptance and loyalty to all of the moral teachings of the Popes or risk “irregularity”.

The problem that you face here is that the term “communion” is used interchangeably between the law and theology. Canon Law is not theology and theology is Canon Law. Canon Law only concerns itself rights and duties. Theology deals with doctrines, right and wrong.

One can be out of communion with the Church on a matter of theology, but have full canonical communion as long as he does not violate his duties. Canon Law can only declare that one loses one’s juridical status if one is out of communion in theology, if the pope so wishes it to be. The tradition of Canon Law is to make the possibility of innocence as broad as possible for as many people as possible and to make the possibility of crimes as difficult as possible by imposing the most severe penalties.

In the case of SSPX the issue is that crimes have been committed. They have ordained bishops without a mandate. They continue to ordain deacons and priests without jurisdiction to do so. They continue to celebrate marriages that are most likely invalid. They continue to hear confessions, even though there is a high risk that most of the absolutions are invalid. They enter dioceses without the permission of the diocesan bishop. They confirm without faculties from the diocesan bishop. They ordain without permission. They take under their wings religious who should be under the authority of their canonically elected superiors. They question the liceity of the Ordinary Form of the mass, even though the Church has ruled that it is valid and licit. They contradict the pontiff when he states that Vatican II was a legitimate council and that it did not teach error. All of these things are crimes. That’s why the popes have invoked canon law and have said the until these crimes stop, they have no canonical place in the Church.

We know that they have strong solid moral values. We know that they are good people and good Christians. But we cannot deny that they have violated not one, but many laws. The Church seems willing to overlook these violations if they accept Vatican II, the OF of the mass, the authority of the pope to decide what is and what is not part of tradition and whatever recommendation the popes makes to them.

If the Vatican really wanted to hurt the SSPX it could simply declare an interdict on any layman who approaches them even for mass. An interdict is simple, because you don’t have to do anything. Every time the person violates the interdict, he falls into grave sin. The Church has the power and authority to do so given by Christ: "Whatever you bind . . . whatever you loose . . . " The only people who would not be affected by an interdict would be those who don’t know about it.

However, the Church has never excommunicated their deacons and priests, has never placed the laity under interdict and in many cases of religious who have placed themselves under the umbrella of the SSPX, all the Church has done is declare them suspended. Where the Church could have been harsh, she has chosen to be very lenient and almost blind to faults to avoid inflicting penalties upon penalties.

As Pope Paul VI wrote to the SSPX. They have taken it upon themselves to decide who is right and who is wrong, but in doing so, they have contradicted themselves. They have violated a number of laws. In the end, you may not be guilty of the same faults as the neighbor, but you’re not squeaky clean either. The laws that they have violated are very serious. Just celebrating the sacraments under the nose of a bishop without his jurisdiction is a serious crime. Bringing in a bishop to confirm, a bishop who is suspended and has no right to be confirming at all, and a bishop who has no right to enter the territory of another bishop and administer confirmation without his consent, just because the laity wants it is serious business. Basically, this is an act of defiance to the Vatican, acquiescence to the laity, and an injustice against the local bishop.

We pray that they come home and that they will share their gifts and receive the gifts that we have. We do not ignore what they are doing in the name of faith, because we know that it’s wrong. Just as using birth control is wrong, so is all of the above. The difference is that the above actions are juridical crimes and birth control is a moral issue, but it’s not a crime. There are not that many moral issues that are crimes as well. The Church deliberately avoids making them crimes. She wants to give these individuals the benefit of participating in Church life in the hope that they will experience conversion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmasstree1:

 

[RPRPsych]

In the case of SSPX the issue is that crimes have been committed. They have ordained bishops without a mandate. They continue to ordain deacons and priests without jurisdiction to do so. They continue to celebrate marriages that are most likely invalid. They continue to hear confessions, even though there is a high risk that most of the absolutions are invalid. They enter dioceses without the permission of the diocesan bishop. They confirm without faculties from the diocesan bishop. They ordain without permission. They take under their wings religious who should be under the authority of their canonically elected superiors. They question the liceity of the Ordinary Form of the mass, even though the Church has ruled that it is valid and licit. They contradict the pontiff when he states that Vatican II was a legitimate council and that it did not teach error. All of these things are crimes. That’s why the popes have invoked canon law and have said the until these crimes stop, they have no canonical place in the Church.

We know that they have strong solid moral values. We know that they are good people and good Christians. But we cannot deny that they have violated not one, but many laws. The Church seems willing to overlook these violations if they accept Vatican II, the OF of the mass, the authority of the pope to decide what is and what is not part of tradition and whatever recommendation the popes makes to them.

I think this is the crux of the whole issue. Thanks for making it clearer.

 

[Faithdancer]

I think we all should just make up our own statistics based on how we feel. Perhaps we can use Wikipedia as a source for our feeltistics. I think it would be as useful as most of the statistics I have seen posted here. On should never, ever look at a study without question the* why* of the study. Then look at the methodology. The majority of statistics I have seen quoted on CAF leave out some key component the reveals the motivation of the poster or the on doing the study.

How do you rate the CARA study from Fordham University?

 

[choliks]

Is it okay if it’s a black and white set or black and white movie, like they had before Vatican II?

There were colored films before Vatican II. Gone with The Wind. Fantasia. Snow White and the 7 Dwarves. etc.