SSPX: What's next?

[Timothysis]

This is hard to believe, especially when one actually looks at the SSPX website to see what they say.

They have a quote from their Archbishop which says…

The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, …is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.

I will not link to the site but if you go to their website this is found in the answer to Question 5, Why should Catholics have nothing to do with the Novus Ordo Missae.

They do not accept the Ordinary Form, this is very evident when one actually reads what they say,

Too true. I have often said that if people took the time to read the many FAQ’s and articles on the sspx site, then they may not have the same positive opinion of them. How can anyone say they “accept fully the validity of the Mass of Paul VI” when the question asks "Why should Catholics have nothing to do with the Novus Ordo Missae?"

 

[diggerdomer]

I believe they accept fully the validity of the Mass of Paul VI. .

I don’t think so; from their own website:

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novusordo.htm

 

[ProVobis]

They do not accept the Ordinary Form, this is very evident when one actually reads what they say,

Forget web sites. Most of them are outdated. Having attended quite a few of their Masses, I haven’t them even talk about the OF. Maybe Benedict XVI gave them reasons to be positive about the EF? Or at least not be as defensive about it. Say what you want but I feel the lifting of the excommunications was a monumental lift to their spirits.

 

[thunderballs75]

I don’t think so; from their own website:

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novusordo.htm

In the same document you showed me, they explain whether they believe the Novus Ordo Missae is valid. Read part “D”.

“This does not necessarily follow from the above defects, as serious as they might be, for only three things are required for validity (presupposing a validly ordained priest), proper…”

Concerning the translation of “pro multis”:
“While we should assume that despite this change the consecration is still valid, nevertheless this does add to the doubt.”

However, they do claim that sometimes the Mass is abused to the point that it is not valid. They do claim that it can be invalid when the priest makes the Mass invalid by what he does and by the abuses.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I believe they accept fully the validity of the Mass of Paul VI. They even accepted priests which had been trained in the Novus Ordo rites. However, they are concerned over the many modernist abuses and protestantisms which tend to creep into it.

The very few that I have actually spoken with will not attend an OF mass because they doubt its validity. I was so taken aback I couldn’t even respond to that. The masses said in my parish are according to the GIRM. I have never attended any OF mass where there were ‘abuses’ to the point I questioned the validity of it. Except once with an elderly mentally impaired priest who skipped the consecration.

 

[diggerdomer]

In the same document you showed me, they explain whether they believe the Novus Ordo Missae is valid. Read part “D”.

At best, they claim its validity is “doubtful.” The tenor of the entire page makes that a very generous reading at best. Catholics are not free to doubt the validity of the Mass (whether OF or EF).

 

[Abenadar]

Yes, it would be unfortunate for the successors to the apostles to have anything to say about what happens in their own dioceses.

“Anything that happens” C’mon, be realistic…you make it sound like all of a sudden these bishops would have nothing but a desk. Just to let you know, the SSPX usually only operates one church in a diocese. That means, the only place in the diocese where the bishop WOULDN’T have a say would be at that one chapel. And what do they care? Up until this point they haven’t shown any of their ecumenical zeal toward the society that they show to non-Catholics anyway, and have seen it fit to just simply ignore or malign the SSPX. Relax Claire. No need to be so melodramatic.

 

[Abenadar]

At best, they claim its validity is “doubtful.” The tenor of the entire page makes that a very generous reading at best. Catholics are not free to doubt the validity of the Mass (whether OF or EF).

It’s validity can be doubtful, just like with any Mass. The difference between the OF and EF is that it’s really easy to do in the OF. The problem ultimately boils down to lukewarmness and worldliness, and the old Lex orandi, lex credendi.

 

[JReducation]

It seems that this discussion keeps coming back to the same thing, the liturgy. But when we read the letter of Pope Benedict XVI he also calls for adherence to Vatican II and to the authority of the pope.

No one seems to be addressing these two requirements. The Holy Father would not have put these down on paper, if they were not issues. Had the only issue been the liturgy, there would have been no need to mention the other points. And in one of his letters the Holy Father describes some of the leadership of the SSPX as arrogant. Arrogant is not exactly what one wants to be called by the Pope.

I believe that he has more than one bone to pick with them and it goes deeper than the liturgy. It goes into their total obedience and submission to the papacy as the Society of St. Peter, Institute of Christ the King, and the Sons of the Redeemer have done.

As to having their own bishops, the Opus Dei does not have its own bishops. There are bishops that are members of the Opus Dei as there are bishops that are Franciscans, Dominicans, Benedictines etc. A bishop is consecrated for an episcopal see, not for a particular group. None of these groups constitute a see.

I’ll offer this example. In the USA we have several Franciscans who are bishops. They are not bishops for the Franciscan order. They are bishops for the local see to which they are assigned. Now, that being said, they are bound to live according to the rule of their order and they report to their religious superiors in all matters regarding their spiritual life. But the work of the diocese does not fall under the jurisdiction of their order. The same happens with a bishop of Opus Dei or of the SSPX. They would have to be bishops for a see. If they took over a see, they would have to take it over with OF and EF and with all the people of God that live in that see. They cannot impose the rules of the SSPX on the diocese anymore than a Dominican bishop can impose the Rue of St. Augustine on his diocese, just because he’s bound to follow it.

This is going to pose a challenge for the bishops of the SSPX. If they take on dioceses, they have to submit to the authority of the pope, not to the authority of the SSPX. They would only be allowed to apply the spirit of the SSPX to their own life, not the life of the diocese.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Marsha_Adams]

As to having their own bishops, the Opus Dei does not have its own bishops. There are bishops that are members of the Opus Dei as there are bishops that are Franciscans, Dominicans, Benedictines etc. A bishop is consecrated for an episcopal see, not for a particular group. None of these groups constitute a see.

What is a personal prelature if it doesn’t have its own bishops?

 

[Marsha_Adams]

The very few that I have actually spoken with will not attend an OF mass because they doubt its validity. I was so taken aback I couldn’t even respond to that. The masses said in my parish are according to the GIRM. I have never attended any OF mass where there were ‘abuses’ to the point I questioned the validity of it. Except once with an elderly mentally impaired priest who skipped the consecration.

I attended a Mass in Saginaw, MI where I did not take communion because I doubted the validity of the Mass. During the entire Mass, the priest refused to say God or Father. Everything was changed to “Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier.” The “homily” was a chapter read from the book Tuesdays with Morrie read by a seated woman. These were only the most flagrant of a series of abuses that occurred during that Mass.

I have never seen so many serious abuses in any other OF Mass I have attended. I do prefer OF on a regular basis and EF on occasion.

 

[JReducation]

What is a personal prelature if it doesn’t have its own bishops?

It is called a personal prelature because it is directly subject to the Holy Father. It’s usually a public association of the faithful that is taken under the Holy Father’s arms, if you will. Their leadership answers directly to him. There can be a bishop or any other cleric at its head. It need not be a bishop. Usually, if there is a bishop at its head, his function is not the same as the diocesan bishop. He cannot grant faculties to anyone outside of the organization, as the diocesan bishop can do. The members of the organization are still bound to the local bishop of the diocese where they live. They are bound to the leadership (bishop or not) with regards to the rules or statutes and missions of the association.

For example, the Opus Dei are bound to follow the rules and statutes of the Work, but they must obey the bishops in the dioceses where they live. While they have their own chapels and meet there for mass, the members must belong to a parish, because canon law says that every Catholic lay person must belong to a parish. Only priests, brothers and sisters do not belong to a parish. They belong to their order. Secular priests, belong to a diocese or to an institute such as the SSPX. But they can only function with the permission of the local bishop.

The Opus Dei, which is a personal prelature, cannot open a chapel in any diocese without the permission of the local bishop. If the SSPX became a prelature, they would be under the same obligation to the local bishop for permission to open their chapels. They do not have to answer to the local bishop about their statutes and their mission. That would come directly under the Holy Father or whomever he appoints to represent him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I attended a Mass in Saginaw, MI where I did not take communion because I doubted the validity of the Mass. During the entire Mass, the priest refused to say God or Father. Everything was changed to “Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier.” The “homily” was a chapter read from the book Tuesdays with Morrie read by a seated woman. These were only the most flagrant of a series of abuses that occurred during that Mass.

I have never seen so many serious abuses in any other OF Mass I have attended. I do prefer OF on a regular basis and EF on occasion.

That has to be reported to the bishop or to the religious superior if the priest is a religious. But if you report it to the local bishop he will report it to the religious superior.

There is absolutely no excuse for such nonsense at mass. It is unacceptable and illicit. I can’t say that the consecration was valid, because you have not mentioned if he used the right words or not.

But definitely write to the local bishop. If you can find out who the Chancellor of the diocese is, that would expidite things. Chacellors usually handle these matters very quickly. The bishop’s mail often ends up all over the place, because of the sheer volume.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

PS. On the outside of the envelope write personal and confidential in large red letters. Secretaries in chanceries are directed never to open such mail.

 

[JReducation]

I am infuriated by what Marsha has shared. There is no reason for such nonsense. Jesus was the SON. He was crucified naked. Everyone could see that he was the SON, if you get my meaning. The scriptures use the word Father. And Holy Spirit is not gender specific.

It is obvious to any idiot with two fingers that God the Father has no gender, because he has no body. But we have no business playing with the words of the scriptures. That is unadulterated nonsense.

If anyone runs into such nonsense there are two places to write. Send a letter to the diocese and send another copy to the USCCB’s Liturgical Commission in Washington, DC. Should the priest be a member of a religious community call the chancery and find out the name and address of his Major Superior and send a copy of your letter there too.

If you get no reply within a month, send a copy of your letter to the Sacred Congregation on Dvine Worship and Sacraments in Rome.

There is no such room for this kind of nonsense in the liturgy. This really gets me angry.

I apologize if I sound rude.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Marsha_Adams]

That has to be reported to the bishop or to the religious superior if the priest is a religious. But if you report it to the local bishop he will report it to the religious superior.

There is absolutely no excuse for such nonsense at mass. It is unacceptable and illicit. I can’t say that the consecration was valid, because you have not mentioned if he used the right words or not.

Bro. JR:

This occurred between 10 and 15 years ago. I was horrified and my companion and I left immediately after the Lord’s prayer (the congregation did say “Our Father”) because you could not have paid me to receive communion at that Mass. We wondered if we had fulfilled our Sunday obligation and what to do if we hadn’t. Being in a strange city and since that was the noon Mass we had no place else to go to attend a proper Mass.

When we got home and told others about this travesty, we learned two things. A. Since the Priest used the proper words at the consecration communion was valid. B. The Bishop of Saginaw had a reputation for being outrageously liberal and encouraging such nonsense. (IMHO, it was probably worse at the particular church we attended because it was a State University church, I’m hoping the rank and file grassroots Catholics in the diocese keep a better leash on their priests and their liturgies.)

 

[Marsha_Adams]

It is called a personal prelature because it is directly subject to the Holy Father. . . .

Thanks for explaining this, I had not understood that before.

 

[diggerdomer]

It’s validity can be doubtful, just like with any Mass. The difference between the OF and EF is that it’s really easy to do in the OF. The problem ultimately boils down to lukewarmness and worldliness, and the old Lex orandi, lex credendi.

If they were only objecting to this or that particular celebration of the OF, you’d be right, but they are objecting to the form of the Mass, i.e. the text and rubrics, itself.

And as Brother JR notes, the lturgy is only one aspect where SSPX rejects the Magisterium.

 

[Abenadar]

If they were only objecting to this or that particular celebration of the OF, you’d be right, but they are objecting to the form of the Mass, i.e. the text and rubrics, itself.

And as Brother JR notes, the lturgy is only one aspect where SSPX rejects the Magisterium.

You’ll have to take your gripes to Rome, because as far as the Holy Father is concerned, he’s on the fast-track to try to bring the SSPX back to “full” communion, and appears to be pretty darn sympathetic with the Society’s plight. He doesn’t appear to be as quick to condemn as many people on these boards, even when the Society does things such as this year’s ordinations (if any of you remember the brouhaha that caused the very orthodox German bishops, which the pope basically ignored etc.).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You’ll have to take your gripes to Rome, because as far as the Holy Father is concerned, he’s on the fast-track to try to bring the SSPX back to “full” communion, and appears to be pretty darn sympathetic with the Society’s plight. He doesn’t appear to be as quick to condemn as many people on these boards, even when the Society does things such as this year’s ordinations (if any of you remember the brouhaha that caused the very orthodox German bishops, which the pope basically ignored etc.).

Again, with the Holy Fathers latest Apostolic Letter, Ecclesiae Unitatem9/url=http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b..._apl_20090702_ecclesiae-unitatem_en.html]link here).

In this letter he flat out states, “However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.”

He also changed the people in major positions on the Ecclesia Dei commission and placed the commission under the control of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

He also states that the lifting of the excommunications was done because he “intended to remove an impediment that might have jeopardized the opening of a door to dialogue and thereby to invite the Bishops and the “Society of St Pius X” to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church.”

No where does he mention a “fast track” nor does he mention any dialogue that is going on.

The ball is squarely in the court of the SSPX, it is time for them to make a move.
%between%

 

[TMC]

I think the future for the SSPX is likely a gradual reintegration into the Church. As JREducation pointed out, the liturgy is not the issue, its acknowledging the Church’s teaching authority and the validity of the councils and the Magisterium. Those individuals that are happy to do that and come back to the Church will do so. Lay people will rejoin their geographic parishes. The clergy is tougher. Even assuming they were validly but illicitly ordained, the Church will likely make a case by case determination of the disposition of each priest - maybe the FSSP could be involved in bringing them over. If any full parishes come over, they may be able to keep together, but they would have to fall under their geographical see, I would think.

There seems to be a suggestion from the SSPX leadership that the Church will have to make a move in their direction to get them back. I think they are misunderstanding their position. The Church is not moving toward SSPX. The Church will not be ‘re-explaining’ or ‘clarifying’ the catechism or any teaching to conform to the SSPX’s desires. The Church is forgiving past indiscretions and giving SSPX a free and clear opportunity to come back to the Church. They can climb on board, or keep swimming on their own, but they are not being offered a chance to steer the boat.