SSPX update?

[JReducation]

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.

I’m sure that this situation requires a great deal of virtue. Heroic Christian life refers to the life of virtue that the person has lived. It does not mean that the person is perfect from birth. It means that he walked the path to perfection with fidelity.

After the canonization comes the academic study of his work. This is where the recommendation is made to declare him a teacher of the Church (Doctor).

When this Holy Father passes, a study of his life will begin, if the next pope desires to do so or if there is someone to postulate his cause. Then we go through the steps.

One thing that I find interesting about Pope Benedict that besides Pope Gregory IX, no other pope dispensed with so many canonization requirements as he has.

Many people are questioning the validity of the beatification of John Duns Scotus, John Henry Newman, John Paul II and now the decree of Venerable of Paul VI. In each of these cases, Pope Benedict demanded that the process be accelerated. Only Pope Gregory IX did this.

Gregory went further. He ordered that everything be dropped and proceeded to canonize, no study, no contest, no questions, no miracles, no venerables, no beatifications, straight to canonization. Anthony, Francis, Dominic and Elizabeth of Hungary were the fastest in history. Anthony’s canonization was less than 11 months after his death. At Francis’ canonization, Pope Gregory declared that he believed every story that people told him about miracles, because he knew Francis personally. Francis had been his friend and his superior. He had already decided that if Anthony died before him, he would canonize him. Anthony died several years before Pope Gregory.

Pope Benedict may go down in history as the second Pope Gregory IX. If he gets to beatify Pope Paul VI.

Some people believe that canonizations today are fast. They forget Pope Gregory. He canonized four saints less than three years from their deaths. They were all his friends. He didn’t need to hear testimonies. He was their best witness.

Pope Benedict’s personal history will not be as colorful as that of Pope Gregory. Deo Gratias.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

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.

No no no . . . the pope does not decide what is or is not dogma or divinely revealed law. Dogma and moral law are revealed through scripture, sacred tradition and the Magisterium. Popes can only define what the Church believes. They cannot create beliefs.

The reigning pope can sort out what the Church believes and what she does not. That’s one of his duties. He does not determine what the Church believes. He also sorts out what is consistent with what the Church believes and what is inconsistent. This is what Pope Benedict meant when he told the SSPX that only the pope has the authority to determine what is and what is not part of tradition. He is not making doctrine, in such a situation. He is sorting through what is being said and defining what is part of doctrine.

For example, when the SSPX says that religious freedom is not part of Church tradition, the pope says, “It is.” Then it is, because only he has the power to make this decree. The next step would be for him to explain how it fits into tradition. But he is not creating revealed tradition. Revelation is already there.

The problem is that in order to explain something, you must have someone else who is willing to listen without prejudice.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Faithdancer]

I’m sure that this situation requires a great deal of virtue. Heroic Christian life refers to the life of virtue that the person has lived. It does not mean that the person is perfect from birth. It means that he walked the path to perfection with fidelity.

After the canonization comes the academic study of his work. This is where the recommendation is made to declare him a teacher of the Church (Doctor).

When this Holy Father passes, a study of his life will begin, if the next pope desires to do so or if there is someone to postulate his cause. Then we go through the steps.

One thing that I find interesting about Pope Benedict that besides Pope Gregory IX, no other pope dispensed with so many canonization requirements as he has.

Many people are questioning the validity of the beatification of John Duns Scotus, John Henry Newman, John Paul II and now the decree of Venerable of Paul VI. In each of these cases, Pope Benedict demanded that the process be accelerated. Only Pope Gregory IX did this.

Gregory went further. He ordered that everything be dropped and proceeded to canonize, no study, no contest, no questions, no miracles, no venerables, no beatifications, straight to canonization. Anthony, Francis, Dominic and Elizabeth of Hungary were the fastest in history. Anthony’s canonization was less than 11 months after his death. At Francis’ canonization, Pope Gregory declared that he believed every story that people told him about miracles, because he knew Francis personally. Francis had been his friend and his superior. He had already decided that if Anthony died before him, he would canonize him. Anthony died several years before Pope Gregory.

Pope Benedict may go down in history as the second Pope Gregory IX. If he gets to beatify Pope Paul VI.

Some people believe that canonizations today are fast. They forget Pope Gregory. He canonized four saints less than three years from their deaths. They were all his friends. He didn’t need to hear testimonies. He was their best witness.

Pope Benedict’s personal history will not be as colorful as that of Pope Gregory. Deo Gratias.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

At least it isn’t as though Pope Gregory IX made any mistakes with his canonization choices, at least with the saints you mention. But when did the “5 year minimum” on canonization begin? I know that many complained that the canonization of St. Josemaria Escriva was rushed during the reign of Blessed John Paul II. Of course, all I can say to that complaint is, Deo gratias!

Perhaps someday Fr. John Hardon will receive serious consideration as well. His completed catechism is nothing short of phenomenal.

 

[JReducation]

At least it isn’t as though Pope Gregory IX made any mistakes with his canonization choices, at least with the saints you mention. But when did the “5 year minimum” on canonization begin? I know that many complained that the canonization of St. Josemaria Escriva was rushed during the reign of Blessed John Paul II. Of course, all I can say to that complaint is, Deo gratias!

The five year minimum began with the Code of 1917. I has not been around even 100 years. Some people treat it as if it had been handed down by St. Peter himself. The number of required miracles has gone up and down over the centuries and even been dispensed with.

During the proceedings for St. Thomas Aquinas, the Devils Advocate (today known as the Defender of the Faith) argued that there were no miracles. The cardinals argued that there were several thousand miracles. The pointed to the Summa and told the Devils Advocate to prove that the Summa itself was not a miraculous work. The Devil’s advocated rested his case. Thomas was canonized without miracles.

During the proceedings for St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, the old code of 1917 said that three miracles were needed. She had two. Finally, the postulator argued that the third miracle was her spiritual legacy, which had led to the establishment of Catholicism in the USA, being as she is the mother of American Catholic Education. Her daughter became the first superior of the Sisters of Mercy in the Northwest. Her grandson became the first bishop of the Northwest Province. Archbishop William Seton and his aunt, Mother Catherine Seton, established the Catholic school system in Washington, Oregon and British Columbia. The pope accepted it.

The system has never been as rigid as people make it out to be. The problem is that when times are rough as they are today, people get nervous. When they get nervous, the first reaction is to try to fix everything. The result is usually rigidity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Dee_S]

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

To put this into the correct context, here is the section from the translation of this address in The Wanderer June 2000. Cardinal Ratzinger’s Remarks Regarding the Lefebvre Schism

“Aside from the liturgical questions, the central points of conflict at present are Lefebvre’s attack on the decree which deals with religious liberty, and on the so-called spirit of Assisi. Here is where Lefebvre fixes the boundaries between his position and that of the Catholic Church today.”

"I need hardly say in so many words that what he is saying on these points is unacceptable. Here we do not wish to consider his errors, rather we want to ask ourselves where there is lack of clarity in ourselves. For Lefebvre what is at stake is the warfare against ideological liberalism, against the relativization of truth. Obviously we are not in agreement with him that – understood according to the Pope’s intentions – the text of the council or the prayer of Assisi were relativizing."

"It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church. Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolate Vatican II and which has provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it which give the impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II."

“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.”

 

[Dee_S]

…more extracts of interest from the same address in Chile by Cardinal Ratzinger:

"In recent months we have put a lot of work into the case of Lefebvre with the sincere intention of creating for his movement a space within the Church that would be sufficient for it to live. The Holy See has been criticized for this. It is said that it has not defended the Second Vatican Council with sufficient energy; that, while it has treated progressive movements with great severity, it has displayed an exaggerated sympathy with the Traditionalist rebellion. The development of events is enough to disprove these assertions. The mythical harshness of the Vatican in the face of the deviations of the progressives is shown to be mere empty words. Up until now, in fact, only warnings have been published; in no case have there been strict canonical penalties in the strict sense. And the fact that when the chips were down Lefebvre denounced an agreement that had already been signed, shows that the Holy See, while it made truly generous concessions, did not grant him that complete license which he desired. Lefebvre has seen that, in the fundamental part of the agreement, he was being held to accept Vatican II and the affirmations of the postconciliar Magisterium, according to the proper authority of each document."

“It was conceded, in addition, that the Fraternity of St. Pius X [Ed. note: known in the U.S. as the Society of St. Pius X] would be able to present to the Holy See – which reserves to itself the sole right of decision – their particular difficulties in regard to interpretations of juridical and liturgical reforms. All of this shows plainly that in this difficult dialog Rome has united generosity, in all that was negotiable, with firmness in essentials. The explanation which Msgr. Lefebvre has given, for the retraction of his agreement, is revealing. He declared that he has finally understood that the agreement he signed aimed only at integrating his foundation into the “Conciliar Church.” The Catholic Church in union with the Pope is, according to him, the “Conciliar Church” which has broken with its own past.** It seems indeed that he is no longer able to see that we are dealing with the Catholic Church in the totality of its Tradition, and that Vatican II belongs to that.”**

“One of the basic discoveries of the theology of ecumenism is that schisms can take place only when certain truths and certain values of the Christian faith are no longer lived and loved within the Church. The truth which is marginalized becomes autonomous, remains detached from the whole of the ecclesiastical structure, and a new movement then forms itself around it. We must reflect on this fact: that a large number of Catholics, far beyond the narrow circle of the Fraternity of Lefebvre, see this man as a guide, in some sense, or at least as a useful ally. It will not do to attribute everything to political motives, to nostalgia, or to cultural factors of minor importance. These causes are not capable of explaining the attraction which is felt even by the young, and especially by the young, who come from many quite different nations, and who are surrounded by completely distinct political and cultural realities. Indeed they show what is from any point of view a restricted and one-sided outlook; but there is no doubt whatever that a phenomenon of this sort would be inconceivable unless there were good elements at work here, which in general do not find sufficient opportunity to live within the Church of today.”

“For all these reasons, we ought to see this matter primarily as the occasion for an examination of conscience. We should allow ourselves to ask fundamental questions, about the defects in the pastoral life of the Church, which are exposed by these events. Thus we will be able to offer a place within the Church to those who are seeking and demanding it, and succeed in destroying all reason for schism. We can make such schism pointless by renewing the interior realities of the Church. There are three points, I think, that it is important to think about…”

The three points he talks of are a beginning - to answer FaithDancers question as to how to go about helping bring them back into full communion.

 

[Faithdancer]

Hey everybody, Dee’s here! Merry Christmas (day 6), Dee (and everyone!)

Here’s a local update- the one parish in our diocese where the EF Mass is offered regularly is substituting the OF Mass in Latin today, in the usual EF timeslot. I don’t think the pastor is planning to replace the EF Mass permanently, since he is the one who has championed it. I suspect he may be trying out the Latin OF Mass to see how it goes.

The Pope, of course, celebrated the Dec. 24th Vigil Mass (OF) in Latin (loved it!)
.
Do you think this is a real trend? If so, can it help “bridge the gap” in some way with the SSPX? Might this be a secret hope of our Pope? I don’t believe it’s his motivation of course. I think his motivation must be largely his profound love for the language of the universal Church that is kindling the Latin OF Mass, his call for renewed study of Latin, etc. But could there be a “fringe benefit” vis-a-vis SSPX reconciliation?

 

[JReducation]

Hey everybody, Dee’s here! Merry Christmas (day 6), Dee (and everyone!)

Here’s a local update- the one parish in our diocese where the EF Mass is offered regularly is substituting the OF Mass in Latin today, in the usual EF timeslot. I don’t think the pastor is planning to replace the EF Mass permanently, since he is the one who has championed it. I suspect he may be trying out the Latin OF Mass to see how it goes.

The Pope, of course, celebrated the Dec. 24th Vigil Mass (OF) in Latin (loved it!)
.
Do you think this is a real trend? If so, can it help “bridge the gap” in some way with the SSPX? Might this be a secret hope of our Pope? I don’t believe it’s his motivation of course. I think his motivation must be largely his profound love for the language of the universal Church that is kindling the Latin OF Mass, his call for renewed study of Latin, etc. But could there be a “fringe benefit” vis-a-vis SSPX reconciliation?

I’m not so sure about it being a turn. The mass at St. Peter’s has always been in Latin. I was a student in Rome from 1983 to 1990 and the mass was always in Latin. I’ve been to midnight mass with Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict XVI and they were both in Latin. The readings and prayers of the faithful have been in multiple languages. The homily is usually in Italian.

Which raises an interesting point that is hidden in your post We do have the Ordinary Form celebrated in Latin in many places. It’s not the norm, but it is available. In many dioceses the bishop’s mass at the cathedral is usually in Latin. If the argument of some people in the SSPX is that the mass is no longer in Latin, that’s not much of an argument. The truth is that it is in Latin in some places, especially when you have a crowd with many languages.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Mrs_Sally]

We have several parishes in this diocese that celebrate the OF in Latin at least once a Sunday. I do not know if the bishop regularly does that since I have only been to confirmation Masses and other events like that where he has presided and the Masses were in English.

We also have quite a few EF Masses in the diocese. The parish near us that had a regular EF no longer does because of a chnage in staffing. But they now have an OF in Latin quite often.

I am not sure that any of that would make a difference to the SSPX. Their issues have always been more than just the form of the Mass. Otherwise they could easier have reconcilled long ago when the FSSP priests did.

 

[JReducation]

We have several parishes in this diocese that celebrate the OF in Latin at least once a Sunday. I do not know if the bishop regularly does that since I have only been to confirmation Masses and other events like that where he has presided and the Masses were in English.

We also have quite a few EF Masses in the diocese. The parish near us that had a regular EF no longer does because of a chnage in staffing. But they now have an OF in Latin quite often.

I am not sure that any of that would make a difference to the SSPX. Their issues have always been more than just the form of the Mass. Otherwise they could easier have reconcilled long ago when the FSSP priests did.

The form of the mass is stumbling block for them, but not the language. They have said so themselves.

I tend to agree with your assumption. If that’s all it was, this chapter would have been closed years ago.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Faithdancer]

The form of the mass is stumbling block for them, but not the language. They have said so themselves.

I tend to agree with your assumption. If that’s all it was, this chapter would have been closed years ago.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

So an EF Mass in English would be okay with the SSPX?

 

[JReducation]

So an EF Mass in English would be okay with the SSPX?

That’s what some SSPX clergy have said. I’d like to see it before I commit to believing it. But several of their leaders have repeatedly said that the Latin is not the issue, but the form itself. They believe that the form is “bad”.

This is a real stumbling block, because Pope Benedict has already said that the form is good and that they have to accept that.

To me, this is an important statement. Even though the Holy Father put this in a memo to Bishop Fellay, I can’t imagine the pope demanding that only the SSPX agree that the Ordinary Form is good and licit. If he’s demanding this of them, it’s because all of us must accept this. It seems logical.

As to the language, as I said, I’d like to see someone celebrate the EF in English and observe the reaction of the SSPXers who have said that the language is not the issue. Call me Thomas on this one.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

As to the language, as I said, I’d like to see someone celebrate the EF in English and observe the reaction of the SSPXers who have said that the language is not the issue. Call me Thomas on this one.

I recall someone saying on one of my mailing lists that he once served a Mass where the priest started with “I will go unto the altar of God” and he responsed “And I’m getting the heck outta here.” (It turned out to be an Anglican liturgy.) Don’t know if it was true but we got a kick out of that.

 

[Faithdancer]

I’ve been to one Anglican service; it was while I was in the reversion process and taking adult Confirmation. It was an evening service, mid-week, on Hollywood Blvd. I was in the area for some theater project and since I couldn’t find a Catholic Mass, I went to the Anglican church. Well, the service was quite pre-Vatican II “Catholic” except for the Book of Common Prayer and a few other details. I didn’t take communion, of course. The kicker was when the pastor started his homily by telling us that it was his very last service as an Anglican, and he was off to Rome to become a Catholic priest! When I talked with him afterward he was like (in a nice way), “what are you doing here?” Well, that was, I don’t know, ironic? Surreal? Anyway it was a beautiful old church, really decked out, with shrines to Mary and everything. I didn’t become an Anglican, though…obviously.

 

[Saints_Alive]

Since this is an update thread, if anyone is interested, you can go to youtube and search …

Bishop Fellay: A Summary of Recent Events, 12-28-12

 

[fordhamstudent]

The Holy Father has been extremely patient with the Society out of charity and fatherly affection–that said it is clear that schism within the Society is only going to increase. I do not envy the situation of my fellow Catholics in the Society since much pain and struggle is to follow since many feel that their consciences are affected on both sides.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

A stupid question, perhaps :

could not the SSPX “accept” the OF, but celebrate in their chapels the EF only? IOW, the OF not for themselves, but for whoever else wanted the OF? Would this not solve the problem? What am I missing?

 

[Faithdancer]

A stupid question, perhaps :

could not the SSPX “accept” the OF, but celebrate in their chapels the EF only? IOW, the OF not for themselves, but for whoever else wanted the OF? Would this not solve the problem? What am I missing?

It does seem reasonable, doesn’t it? Of course they would need permission from the diocesan bishops, and action by the Pope would probably be required to “encourage” the bishops to accept the newly facultized SSPX priests offering additional EF masses within the diocese…

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

It does seem reasonable, doesn’t it? Of course they would need permission from the diocesan bishops, and action by the Pope would probably be required to “encourage” the bishops to accept the newly facultized SSPX priests offering additional EF masses within the diocese…

Exactly. It seems to me that that would solve the schism instantly. I am probably missing something…

 

[Faithdancer]

Exactly. It seems to me that that would solve the schism instantly. I am probably missing something…

That’s what I wonder too. Is there something in the position of the Vatican and the CDF that states that if reconciled the SSPX must celebrate the OF Mass? Nothing I’ve read about it to date would indicate that.