SSPX update?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faithdancer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, the extracts in the above post are also from The Ratzinger Report.

Also, wanting to wish all here a very blessed Christmas:Dpraying for everyone (grumpy me included:thumbsup:)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
The SSPX ‘sacraments’ of marriage and confession are invalid due to their canonical status in the Church.
Remember - their status has been irregular since 1975 - when their status as a recognized association of the Catholic Faithful was revoked by the diocese where it was granted originally, and they’d been operating beyond that diocese since almost immediately after their creation. And Rome never granted an appeal of that.

Rome has treated them as a de-facto clerical association. But has always noted their irregularities.
 
Remember - their status has been irregular since 1975 - when their status as a recognized association of the Catholic Faithful was revoked by the diocese where it was granted originally, and they’d been operating beyond that diocese since almost immediately after their creation. And Rome never granted an appeal of that.

Rome has treated them as a de-facto clerical association. But has always noted their irregularities.
They are a private clerical association. Pious unions were abolished in 1983. All institutes, including religious orders, religious congregations, secular orders, secular institutes and societies of apostolic life fall under the umbrella of “Association of the Christian Faithful.”

There are two kinds of associations, public and private. The public association has canonical status, the private does not. They fall under private and until they agree to the Holy See’s demands, they will not be elevated to a public association, which means no canonical status.

There is only one exception to this rule, that’s when a bishop chooses to create a private association. As the ordinary of the diocese, he has the authority to grant canonical status to a private association. Such is the case of the Knights of Columbus. They are a private association of the Christian faithful, but hey have canonical status in the Catholic Church. Therefore, they are subject to the local bishops and to the Holy See. Actually, they are a private association of pontifical right. The SSPX does not meet those requirements.

Have a blessed Christmas,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:
 
Due to a break in my theology studies, I’ve been able to resume study of the Marian Catechist coursework by Fr. John Hardon, S.J. In the course of my search for additional resources, I came across this reference to Fr. Hardon and his concern for the SSPX. While hardly an update, I find it to be a fascinating glimpse of what one of the undisputed giants of post-Vatican II catechetical writing thought about the SSPX:

“He [Fr. Hardon] was one of the great and persevering orthodox giants of our time, always faithful and obedient to the Church and the Holy Father, and was much concerned about orthodox and otherwise committed Catholics who were tempted to join schismatic breakaway groups such as the SSPX. He understood perfectly well why they were troubled, and was sympathetic to their concerns (insofar as possible), but he never for a moment accepted the premise that a schismatic act was ever justified. I know this for a fact because I heard him speak about it on many occasions. He encouraged us – as lay catechists – to reach out to such people and attempt to bring them back into full communion with the Church. Yet he yielded nothing to the modernist dissidents on the opposite end of the spectrum either, to put it very mildly. He was simply, well, an orthodox Catholic.” (italics mine).

source: socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/04/fr-john-hardon-sj-servant-of-god-1914.html

My question is, what does “reach out to such people and attempt to bring them back into full communion with the Church” entail? It sounds like Fr. Hardon is calling for engagement and not ostracism (my personal feeling is that ostracism yields nothing but more insularity and separation). But how to reach out and engage, and yet remain faithful to the Magisterium? Is Fr. Hardon only referring to those who are “tempted” to join breakaway groups, but have not yet done so? In other words, who is he referring to as “them” in the phrase, “attempt to bring them back into full communion with the Church?”

Fr. Hardon did not live long enough to see the excommunications lifted, so it’s only conjecture to imagine what he would have had to say about the SSPX situation today…🤷
 
Due to a break in my theology studies, I’ve been able to resume study of the Marian Catechist coursework by Fr. John Hardon, S.J. In the course of my search for additional resources, I came across this reference to Fr. Hardon and his concern for the SSPX. While hardly an update, I find it to be a fascinating glimpse of what one of the undisputed giants of post-Vatican II catechetical writing thought about the SSPX:

“He [Fr. Hardon] was one of the great and persevering orthodox giants of our time, always faithful and obedient to the Church and the Holy Father, and was much concerned about orthodox and otherwise committed Catholics who were tempted to join schismatic breakaway groups such as the SSPX. He understood perfectly well why they were troubled, and was sympathetic to their concerns (insofar as possible), but he never for a moment accepted the premise that a schismatic act was ever justified. I know this for a fact because I heard him speak about it on many occasions. He encouraged us – as lay catechists – to reach out to such people and attempt to bring them back into full communion with the Church. Yet he yielded nothing to the modernist dissidents on the opposite end of the spectrum either, to put it very mildly. He was simply, well, an orthodox Catholic.” (italics mine).

source: socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/04/fr-john-hardon-sj-servant-of-god-1914.html

My question is, what does “reach out to such people and attempt to bring them back into full communion with the Church” entail? It sounds like Fr. Hardon is calling for engagement and not ostracism (my personal feeling is that ostracism yields nothing but more insularity and separation). But how to reach out and engage, and yet remain faithful to the Magisterium? Is Fr. Hardon only referring to those who are “tempted” to join breakaway groups, but have not yet done so? In other words, who is he referring to as “them” in the phrase, “attempt to bring them back into full communion with the Church?”

Fr. Hardon did not live long enough to see the excommunications lifted, so it’s only conjecture to imagine what he would have had to say about the SSPX situation today…🤷
Father was very concerned about the laity who followed the SSPX and the SSPV. He created a short program to train catechists to educate laymen who were following these groups and others like them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:
 
Thanks jwinch2, for posting something that is actually recent…not an update on negotiations, so to speak, but certainly a well written and balanced article by Dom Alcuin. The article reminds us that while SSPX reconciliation has been trivialized by some, its importance dismissed due to the relatively small size of the organization, SSPX reconciliation is not a trivial matter to Pope Benedict XVI.
 
I’m curious to know if this is objectionable to SSPX leadership. It certainly seems like something they might have said…when in fact it was said by our Pope himself!

“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI
given July 13, 1988, in Santiago, Chile
 
I’m curious to know if this is objectionable to SSPX leadership. It certainly seems like something they might have said…when in fact it was said by our Pope himself!

“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI
given July 13, 1988, in Santiago, Chile
How about instead we focus on quotes that Pope Benedict has made;
  1. Since becoming Pope.
  2. From this millennia.
 
So he has retracted this declaration then? What is the expiration date on statements made by popes, or popes when they were cardinals?
 
Quotes like that from Cardinal Ratzinger’s address in Chile need to be taken in context. I have not read the rest of what he said that day, but based on his other writings and statements, it does not sound like he is saying the Council can be dismissed as not at all important or be held to be contrary to defined dogma. He is saying that it shouldn’t be treated either as the only thing necessary to understand or follow.

The Pope’s recent statements on the VII council make it clear that we all must accept the documents of the council as they were intended - without either inflating their importance, or treating them as not having *any *importance.

It is this proper perspective that seems to be so difficult. Some (SSPX) want to sweep it into the dustbin and others (LCWR?) seem to want to embelish it with meaning and direction it never had.

Farther down thread Dee posted some excellent quotes from the Ratzinger Report we would all do well to re-read those interviews taken a few years before the talk in Chile.
 
Well, no one is minimizing the importance of Vatican 2, Ms. Sally. It just seems to me that his passage, as quoted from that address anyway, isn’t that far different from some of the things I’ve heard from Bishop Fellay. Considering Pope Benedict’s stated priority for SSPX reconciliation, it seems like they aren’t all that far apart, dogmatically.
 
Cardinal Ratzinger was right then, and Pope Benedict is right now. The council was treated wrongly by many people, modernists and traditionalists alike. It was treated as a break from Tradition on both sides, when it should have been viewed within the context of all of Church history. Modernists saw it as a license to remake the Church in their image instead of God’s, and traditionalists saw it as a departure from the Faith that they needed to resist.

Both are wrong, Cardinal Ratzinger was right.
 
So he has retracted this declaration then? What is the expiration date on statements made by popes, or popes when they were cardinals?
When you have popes like Pope Benedict XVI, who have been public figures long before they took office, you always go with their last position or last answer to a question.

The logic being that a pope always sees things and knows things that a cardinal does not. Of course, there is the human element. An individual has a right to change his mind about something, especially when they get to review from a different perspective.

It is also important to remember that the assessment of reigning pope always trumps any previous assessments. The only thing that a pope cannot change is dogma and divinely revealed moral law. Everything else is up to him.

This is why I try to warn people when they start throwing St. Thomas Aquinas around and the saints, reminding them that not everything that St. Thomas wrote has been used by the Church and that St. Thomas was a great scholar, but never a pope.

The same applies to Dr. Joseph Ratzinger. He will probably go down in history as one of the greatest scholars in Catholic history. However, it will be what Pope Benedict XVI says and adopts from Joseph Ratzinger that will determine our direction as a Church, not Dr. Ratzinger. When Cardinal Ratzinger wrote theology, he was writing as a doctor of theology, not as pope. His writings and comments carried the authority of a scholar. His writings and comments today continue to carry the authority of a scholar, but also the authority of a sitting pope.

This often throws people off, because the current Holy Father did make statements in the past and statements today that do not agree. However, this does not mean that one is right and the other is wrong. It means that we have two different statements made from two different points of view and probably responding to two different situations.

I can speak from experience as a superior. There are things that I know about my brothers that I did not know a year ago. That knowledge has affected the way that I think about things and how I respond to certain questions. With a position of authority also comes a bigger picture.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:
 
Interesting…it seems as if Br. JR and jwinch2 are in agreement. It doesn’t seem as if our Pope has changed his mind about SSPX since 1988, and still exhibits great hope and patience.

I’ve felt for some time that our Pope will be a Doctor of the Church someday, though I’d like to be better able to articulate why. Is this distinction given for great teachings/writings alone, or for actions which benefit the Church and the faithful as well?
 
Interesting…it seems as if Br. JR and jwinch2 are in agreement. It doesn’t seem as if our Pope has changed his mind about SSPX since 1988, and still exhibits great hope and patience.
One should never lose hope.
I’ve felt for some time that our Pope will be a Doctor of the Church someday, though I’d like to be better able to articulate why. Is this distinction given for great teachings/writings alone, or for actions which benefit the Church and the faithful as well?
He’ll have to be canonized first. A doctor is one who is a teacher of the faith. He or she need not have achieved great things.

St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Therese never did any great pastoral service for the Church or built great institutions.

Their heroic lives of virtue made them saints. The doctorate came from their scholarship.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
One should never lose hope.

He’ll have to be canonized first. A doctor is one who is a teacher of the faith. He or she need not have achieved great things.

St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Therese never did any great pastoral service for the Church or built great institutions.

Their heroic lives of virtue made them saints. The doctorate came from their scholarship.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
Well he certainly has exhibited the “patience of a saint.” If he can pull off SSPX reconciliation, wouldn’t that be an act of heroism, so to speak? I mean in terms of the “heroic effort” required in dealing with all involved, including all of those on both sides who oppose reconciliation.

As I’ve probably said before, if anyone can do it, Pope Benedict XVI can.🙂
 
It is also important to remember that the assessment of reigning pope always trumps any previous assessments. The only thing that a pope cannot change is dogma and divinely revealed moral law. Everything else is up to him.
And since the reigning pope decides what is and is not dogma, and what is and is not divinely revealed moral law, you cannot be sure of the permanency of any of the Catholic Church’s teachings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top