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?
The Holy Father told them that they must accept that the Ordinary Form of the mass is valid and licit. The SSPX agrees that it’s valid, but refuses to accept that it’s licit. The stumbling block is not whether or not they celebrate it. That would be an internal issue if they become a prelature. But no Catholic is allowed to say that the Ordinary Form of the mass is bad. Bishop Fellay has gone down on record as saying that the Society believes that the OF is “bad”. Those are his exact words.
In essence, the Society is then saying that every priest from Venerable Paul VI to Pope Benedict XVI has been celebrating a bad mass and haa been supporting it. To make it short and not so sweet. their statement is saying that the Magisterium has approved, promoted and participated in an illegal form of the mass. That’s quite an indictment of the Magisterium.
The other issue is the CCC. The Holy Father has told them that they must assent to the CCC. No Catholic is exempt from this assent. The Society will assent to the Catechism of Trent and the Catechism of Pius X. The CCC is based on the Catechism of Trent. The Catechism of Pius X was never the official catechism of the Catholic Church. This does not mean that it was a bad catechism. It simply means what it says. Pope Pius did not write and publish it with the intent of making it the official catechism of the Church. Whereas, Pope John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger did write and publish the CCC with the intent of making it the official catechism of the Catholic Church and commanded that all catechisms in the future should use the CCC as their resource. That’s in the decree written by Bl. John Paul. The Society has said that it will not give assent to the CCC, because “it contains the same errors as the Council documents.”
The other stumbling block is that the Pope told Bishop Fellay that the SSPX must accept that the documents of Vatican II are free of all error and that they are part of the tradition of the Church. Even though Vatican II was a pastoral council, it does not cease to be an essential part of the Church’s teaching Magisterium; because in the end, pastoral care is the work of the Church.
Bishop Fellay said that the documents on religious freedom and ecumenism are contrary to what the Church has taught in the past. Pope Benedict’s response is that it is the pope who decides what is and what is not part of tradition, what is and what is not contrary to the faith of the Church. This raised the next stumbling block.
The Pope sent a message to Bishop Fellay that said that the SSPX must accept, de fide, that only the pope can determine what is or is not tradition. They accept that only the pope can determine this, but they argue that in this case the pope is mistaken and they are right. This response is a tad confusing.
The issues have nothing to do with the bishops and the local dioceses. That was settled when they were offered the prelature. The prelature is totally dependent on the pope, just as is the Opus Dei Prelature. There are some stumbling blocks with the prelature. The pope a) appoints the bishop whom he delegates to govern the prelature; b) even though the prelature can write its constitutions and statutes, the pope can revise them, overrule them or write them himself; and c) no prelature can open a house in any diocese without the permission of the local bishop. However, the pope made a concession to them, which Bishop Fellay mentions in this talk. Any chapel that is three years or older can stay open without further permission. Bishop Fellay also said that the Holy Father said that in those places where there is no physical chapel, but where they have been celebrating the mass for the people for three years or longer, even though it may be a motel room or auditorium, these can be considered chapels. The next step would be to build one.
If I’m understanding this correctly, this is the same as when a new parish is established. The parish building may not exist, but the people and the parish staff do exist. It’s a matter of putting up a permanent building in the proper geographical area.
The stumbling blocks are greater than the EF. Basically, they’re being asked to do what the rest of us have to do. By the rest of us, I mean other religious orders, religious congregations, secular orders, societies of apostolic life and secular institutes. To be recognized being in full communion with the Church, the leadership has had to agree to these points in the name of their members and the faithful who follow them.
For example, when our community was given permission to separate from the larger Franciscan community, I, as superior, had to state that we believe and we agree with everything that the Catholic Church teaches, everything that the Holy See commands, everything that the local bishop orders and everything that has been handed down to us from St. Francis. You have to swear to this in the name of your community. The community members are not asked. The superior makes this decision for them. They accept it, leave or are dismissed.
My situation was easier. First, we do believe and agree with all the above. Second, we were only seven at the time. Third, the laity whom we serve are not allowed to have a voice in how we serve them, nor do we allow our men to share with the laity everything that we decide internally. The lay faithful whom we serve accept what we have to offer or not. It’s their choice. If they accept what we have to offer, they must also support the apostolate.
I have this latest update to offer but do so very sadly, as it looks to me like the SSPX will never, certainly in this generation, enter into full communion with the Church and all the efforts of our Holy Father have come to nothing, except a sorrow that all mother’s bear when their child is prodigal.