SSPX: What's next?

[Abenadar]

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.”
Right, he is restating the position that the Vatican has held since '88. At the same time, the Vatican and the SSPX are working together toward a resolution to the situation, and the Society is continuing with its original course of administering the sacraments with a somewhat tacit approval from the Holy Father, who doesn’t expect that until the doctrinal talks are finished the Society will all of a sudden stop doing what it has always done. And by the way, before anybody begins slamming the SSPX for defying popes, just remember that there are still arguments for and against the SSPX’s continued work (licit/illicit etc).

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.

With the doctrinal talks that are under way (or will be shortly) I think the CDF is probably a good place to house the ED commission, don’t you?

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.”

Great. Thank you, your Holiness.

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

It seems like a fast track to me…And yes, there is, and has been a continuous dialogue since around 2001, and especially since the installment of Benedict as supreme pontiff. Moreover, (I guess you are unaware, since this probably is an issue of lesser importance to you compared with the religious and faithful who attend the SSPX) doctrinal talks HAVE been agreed upon, and have either started, or will start shortly (I can’t remember the exact date that it’s supposed to begin). And although we know for a fact that this has been agreed upon by both parties, the dialogue is to be secret, so no details for you or for me…I can’t wait to see the results, however!

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

Uh…they have been moving…and shaking, quite a bit, as has Rome. That’s why I used the term “fast-track”.

 

[Abenadar]

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.

This has already been happening for some time.

I think they are misunderstanding their position. The Church is not moving toward SSPX.

Not true. They are both moving toward one another in the direction of resolving the issue of “imperfect” communion, among other obstacles.

The Church will not be ‘re-explaining’ or ‘clarifying’ the catechism or any teaching to conform to the SSPX’s desires.

This may be true, but the Church WILL be ‘re-explaining’ and ‘clarifying’ many things…Not to conform to the SSPX’s desires, but to conform with Catholic teaching. The explanations are necessary, methinks, because some of the modern ‘interpretations’, everybody will agree, can be pretty un-Catholic, and the original documents must be interpreted in a Catholic sense. This is what is known as “common” sense…for Catholic documents to be Catholic. lol.

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.

The SSPX can’t “come back” to the Church if it’s already IN the Church! As to the SSPX “swimming on their own”…They’re not ‘on their own’, since they still hold fast to the teachings of the Catholic Church. I think I’ll just go with the pope on this one…their status is “irregular”. Now let’s just throw some metamucil at the situation

 

[TMC]

This has already been happening for some time.

Not true. They are both moving toward one another in the direction of resolving the issue of “imperfect” communion, among other obstacles.

This may be true, but the Church WILL be ‘re-explaining’ and ‘clarifying’ many things…Not to conform to the SSPX’s desires, but to conform with Catholic teaching. The explanations are necessary, methinks, because some of the modern ‘interpretations’, everybody will agree, can be pretty un-Catholic, and the original documents must be interpreted in a Catholic sense. This is what is known as “common” sense…for Catholic documents to be Catholic. lol.

The SSPX can’t “come back” to the Church if it’s already IN the Church! As to the SSPX “swimming on their own”…They’re not ‘on their own’, since they still hold fast to the teachings of the Catholic Church. I think I’ll just go with the pope on this one…their status is “irregular”. Now let’s just throw some metamucil at the situation

I’d like to hear in what way the Church has moved toward SSPX doctrinally. I don’t believe it has. The Church does not need to clarify its teachings to make them conform with Catholic teaching. The Church’s teachings are Catholic teaching.

I agree that the SSPX are within the Church in the same way that any Catholics that have separated themselves are within the Church. But the SSPX is not holding fast to the teachings of the Church and by their actions they have separated themselves from the Church’s formal structure. Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul have been very patient with the SSPX - but as long as they deny the validity or authority of any of the Ecumenical Councils, the legitimacy of the Magisterium or its teaching authority, they are swimming on their own in the same way that all Christians that have chosen to depart from the Church are. Their situation is certainly irregular, and will remain so until and unless they reform their ways. Nothing the Pope has said suggests that he believes otherwise.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Exactly. I think many just think that the SSPX can be admitted like the FSSP or ICR but the fact that they have their own bishop complicates the situation. Definitely a legal and territorial problem.

The Vatican II issue may very well serve as a stalling tactic. Seems as if the SSPX adheres more to Vatican II than many of the non-SSPX members.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I’d like to hear in what way the Church has moved toward SSPX doctrinally. I don’t believe it has. The Church does not need to clarify its teachings to make them conform with Catholic teaching. The Church’s teachings are Catholic teaching.

I agree that the SSPX are within the Church in the same way that any Catholics that have separated themselves are within the Church. But the SSPX is not holding fast to the teachings of the Church and by their actions they have separated themselves from the Church’s formal structure. Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul have been very patient with the SSPX - but as long as they deny the validity or authority of any of the Ecumenical Councils, the legitimacy of the Magisterium or its teaching authority, they are swimming on their own in the same way that all Christians that have chosen to depart from the Church are. Their situation is certainly irregular, and will remain so until and unless they reform their ways. Nothing the Pope has said suggests that he believes otherwise.

The Pope has been very clear in his previous writings that the council has been misapplied and can, in some instances, be re-interpreted in the “light of Tradition”. Perhaps the Pope, who is arguably more conservative than his immediate predecessors, is actually looking for an opportunity to reform some of the perceptions of the council documents, in the same way he feels a need for a “reform of the reform” of the liturgy where liturgical abuse has been frequently a cause of consternation for him.

 

[mick321]

I’d like to hear in what way the Church has moved toward SSPX doctrinally. I don’t believe it has. The Church does not need to clarify its teachings to make them conform with Catholic teaching. The Church’s teachings are Catholic teaching.

I agree that the SSPX are within the Church in the same way that any Catholics that have separated themselves are within the Church. But the SSPX is not holding fast to the teachings of the Church and by their actions they have separated themselves from the Church’s formal structure. Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul have been very patient with the SSPX - but as long as they deny the validity or authority of any of the Ecumenical Councils, the legitimacy of the Magisterium or its teaching authority, they are swimming on their own in the same way that all Christians that have chosen to depart from the Church are. Their situation is certainly irregular, and will remain so until and unless they reform their ways. Nothing the Pope has said suggests that he believes otherwise.

Currently, the relationship between the Society and the Church is irregular. We know that.

In 2007, Pope Benedict (under no obligation whatsoever) lifted the de facto ban on the Tridentine Mass. We know that too.

In 2009, Pope Benedict (under no obligation whatsoever) lifted the excommunications at the request of SSPX Superior General Fellay. Known fact.

Some would say that it’s time for SSPX to show some good faith and reform their ways.

Just what should a reformed SSPX look like? Their leadership? Their organization? Their sacraments? Their Chapels? Their teaching?

 

[JReducation]

Currently, the relationship between the Society and the Church is irregular. We know that.

In 2007, Pope Benedict (under no obligation whatsoever) lifted the de facto ban on the Tridentine Mass. We know that too.

In 2009, Pope Benedict (under no obligation whatsoever) lifted the excommunications at the request of SSPX Superior General Fellay. Known fact.

Some would say that it’s time for SSPX to show some good faith and reform their ways.

Just what should a reformed SSPX look like? Their leadership? Their organization? Their sacraments? Their Chapels? Their teaching?

This is just my opinion. Sometimes the most important part of reform and reconciliation is not in the above, but in the rhetoric and the attitude. I am reminded of a trip that I took about two years ago. I was in my habit and the man sitting next to me was an SSPX priest in his cassock. To this day, I believe the airline did the seating on purpose. But that’s another story.

Anyway, Father turned out to be a wonderful traveling companion. But he salutation was a little jarring. When he sat down he said, “A you a Franciscan?” I responded affirmatively. He immediately said, “It’s good to see a religious who looks like one.”

I realize that it was meant as a positive statement, but one has to be careful of how one speaks. Some things do not come across as a positive. They can can and often do come off as sanctimonious.

I offer this example, because as the trip progressed Father turned out to be a fun guy. But had I been one of those people who takes offense personally, I would have blown him off from the start as being judgmental of religious. Since he was much younger than I, I did offer him some advice about three hours into our five-hour trip. I suggested that he try to use a little tact when dealing with mainstream religious and clergy. I proceeded to explain how his greeting had sounded. I will never know if he applied my advice, but I think he go it.

You can’t build reform and reconciliation with language that can be taken to be an attack. In the place of the SSPX, they are not in the place of authority. They are sons of the Church, not the ruling class in the Church. You have to speak to authority with respect and with tact.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

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.).

No I don’t. I have the same gripes Rome has, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[PBTY]

Having been taught at a Roman Catholic school in the `950s and early '60s (pre-Vatican II) traditional Catholic teachings and the Traditional Latin Mass, and having suffered (yes, suffered!) through all of the vocation and Faith killing “improvements” via Vatican II, I am eternally grateful to have found all that I thought was forever lost about my Catholic Faith at a humble little Chapel of the Society of St. Pius X. And guess what led my long lost way there? None other than Pope Benedict XVI’s “Summorum Pontificum”. Hah!

 

[PBTY]

Sorry, make that “1950s”.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Currently, the relationship between the Society and the Church is irregular. We know that.

In 2007, Pope Benedict (under no obligation whatsoever) lifted the de facto ban on the Tridentine Mass. We know that too.

In 2009, Pope Benedict (under no obligation whatsoever) lifted the excommunications at the request of SSPX Superior General Fellay. Known fact.

Some would say that it’s time for SSPX to show some good faith and reform their ways.

Just what should a reformed SSPX look like? Their leadership? Their organization? Their sacraments? Their Chapels? Their teaching?

We also know that in 2009 Pope Benedict said, " the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry."

 

[mick321]

We also know that in 2009 Pope Benedict said, " the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry."

Care to take it to the next level, Bro?

 

[diggerdomer]

Having been taught at a Roman Catholic school in the `950s and early '60s (pre-Vatican II) traditional Catholic teachings and the Traditional Latin Mass, and having suffered (yes, suffered!) through all of the vocation and Faith killing “improvements” via Vatican II, I am eternally grateful to have found all that I thought was forever lost about my Catholic Faith at a humble little Chapel of the Society of St. Pius X. And guess what led my long lost way there? None other than Pope Benedict XVI’s “Summorum Pontificum”. Hah!

Pope Benedict (and all Popes) of course accepts and teaches the Magisterial teachings of Vatican II. Hah!

 

[JReducation]

Care to take it to the next level, Bro?

First of all, please be respectful. Do no call a religious, “Bro”. It’s Brother or Friar.

Next, there is no next level, really. The clerics in the Society need to do whatever Rome requires of them to move to the next level, which would be to have canonical status within the Church. As long as they don’t have canonical status, things are complicatedd, especially any marriages they witness and any absolutions that they give in confession. That’s not good for them and for the faithful.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Having been taught at a Roman Catholic school in the `950s and early '60s (pre-Vatican II) traditional Catholic teachings and the Traditional Latin Mass, and having suffered (yes, suffered!) through all of the vocation and Faith killing “improvements” via Vatican II, I am eternally grateful to have found all that I thought was forever lost about my Catholic Faith at a humble little Chapel of the Society of St. Pius X. And guess what led my long lost way there? None other than Pope Benedict XVI’s “Summorum Pontificum”. Hah!

Summorum Pontificum never said that one should subscribe to the SSPX. That’s as bad an application of Summorum Pontificum as other people have made of other Conciliar and Post Conciliar documents.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Abenadar]

This is just my opinion. Sometimes the most important part of reform and reconciliation is not in the above, but in the rhetoric and the attitude. I am reminded of a trip that I took about two years ago. I was in my habit and the man sitting next to me was an SSPX priest in his cassock. To this day, I believe the airline did the seating on purpose. But that’s another story.

Anyway, Father turned out to be a wonderful traveling companion. But he salutation was a little jarring. When he sat down he said, “A you a Franciscan?” I responded affirmatively. He immediately said, “It’s good to see a religious who looks like one.”

I realize that it was meant as a positive statement, but one has to be careful of how one speaks. Some things do not come across as a positive. They can can and often do come off as sanctimonious.

I offer this example, because as the trip progressed Father turned out to be a fun guy. But had I been one of those people who takes offense personally, I would have blown him off from the start as being judgmental of religious. Since he was much younger than I, I did offer him some advice about three hours into our five-hour trip. I suggested that he try to use a little tact when dealing with mainstream religious and clergy. I proceeded to explain how his greeting had sounded. I will never know if he applied my advice, but I think he go it.

You can’t build reform and reconciliation with language that can be taken to be an attack. In the place of the SSPX, they are not in the place of authority. They are sons of the Church, not the ruling class in the Church. You have to speak to authority with respect and with tact.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Let me just start by saying that I find that it is always nice to see you participate in a discussion, JR. I read a lot here, and for a rather long time, before I started posting…Anyway.

While I understand what you’re saying here, I also understand the other side. Recently, two men have been elevated to the point where they wear cassocks from my SSPX chapel…When they were flying home for summer, they just happened to run into the MN priests meeting (or whatever) where they were greeted (in their cassocks, as seminarians) by many priests wearing their khakis and swearter vests (no black or collars in sight) who stated that they had never seen these (sspx seminarians) priests before, and that they hoped they wouldn’t all have to go back to “19th century” dress codes, etc.

OTOH, I’m glad that you took Fr. in stride and didn’t take offense. It’s a testiment to your character. May we all have the rhetoric to restore all things in Christ, and to abandon ways and means that prove to be detrimental.

And now my own anecdote. When I was in college (as a music student) playing in the pit for one of the many operas put on by my school, I happened to venture out into the lobby during one of the intermissions of Verdi’s “Falstaff” to see my parish priest at the time…Wearing his Kakhi pants, button up shirt, and red sweater vest. He remarked to me how wonderful the performance was thus far, and that, amazingly, he had seen four other priests there! I remarked back, a little bit snarkily, that I had seen none. Moral of the story, at least IMHO, is that if there are religious there, it’s nice to be able to recognize the fact. If I didnt’ know that he was a priest, I would never been able to guess by his outfit that my parish priest actually was a priest. Just sayin’…

 

[TMC]

The Pope has been very clear in his previous writings that the council has been misapplied and can, in some instances, be re-interpreted in the “light of Tradition”. Perhaps the Pope, who is arguably more conservative than his immediate predecessors, is actually looking for an opportunity to reform some of the perceptions of the council documents, in the same way he feels a need for a “reform of the reform” of the liturgy where liturgical abuse has been frequently a cause of consternation for him.

The Pope has made clear that Vatican II must be properly interpreted, which is not quite the same as re-interpreted. For example, one of SSPX’s hot-buttons is the statement that the Church of Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church because that statement suggests that the Church of Christ, or elements of it, may be found outside the Catholic Church. Two years into his papacy Benedict certified for publication a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarifying the use of the term “subsists” in councilar documents. The document made it clear that subsists is the correct term because it is in the Catholic Church alone that “are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted,” but confirms that the Church recognizes “that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

Pope Benedict is dedicated to seeing Vatican II implemented properly, but that should not be read as code for “undone.” He helped write many of the documents, and he believes they represent the Catholic faith.

As far as whether Benedict is “conservative,” I find that word means little in religous contexts. I would agree that he is conservative in the ordinary social/cultural context - he is old-fashioned, likes classical music, has old world manners and sensibilities. Theologically, I find him to be middle of the road. I certainly don’t see him as having any traditionalist tendencies, at least not the way that term is used on this forum.

Currently, the relationship between the Society and the Church is irregular. We know that.

In 2007, Pope Benedict (under no obligation whatsoever) lifted the de facto ban on the Tridentine Mass. We know that too.

In 2009, Pope Benedict (under no obligation whatsoever) lifted the excommunications at the request of SSPX Superior General Fellay. Known fact.

I think that the SSPX was part of the reason for encouraging wider celebration of the extraordinary form of the Mass, but its a mistake to assume it was the only, or even the main reason. There are a lot of loyal Catholics who have also been asking for its return.

As the Pope explained, the lifting of the ex-communications was a pastoral act of kindness. The main purpose of excommunication is to encourage reform. That technique was not working here, so the Pope decided to try another approach. It was not in any way meant to be a signal that the what was done was not wrong, or that the excommunications were improper.

Some would say that it’s time for SSPX to show some good faith and reform their ways.

Just what should a reformed SSPX look like? Their leadership? Their organization? Their sacraments? Their Chapels? Their teaching?

Easy - none as to leadership and organization. The same as the rest of the Church as to the other questions. Do you really think the Church will allow an organization that defied Papal authority for decades to come into the Church as an integral unit? Or to have their own separate sacraments and teaching?

 

[JReducation]

I believe that as Catholics all of us have to be very careful of any group that has consecrated their own bishops. When you consecrate your own bishops, outside of the authority of the pope, it creates a very dangerous posibility for schism. One has to judge the intent of those who consecrated the bishops and those who accepted to be consecrated. I believe this is what Pope Benedict and the Sacred Congregation for the Faith are doing. Otherwise, there would have been no reason to move Ecclesia Dei from where it was and place it under the jurisdiction of the Congregation of the Faith. This signals that the Church is concerned that there is the remote posibility that the faith is in danger of being attacked by this organization. The studies may prove that the fear is groundless; but it does deserve to be studied and discussed with the key players.

The re-entry of the SSPX is no more difficult than other groups who have also consecrated their own bishops The Church looks at them with hope that they truly want to be in full communion with the Church, but she also looks at them with concern. I don’t believe that the concern is as much about the clergy (in this case the SSPX) as it is about the laity. Please allow me to explain.

From what I have seen on these forums, the SSPX laity is often much more aggressive and much more hostile toward the mainstream Church than is the clergy of the SSPX. I was recently on another thread where someone said that they were thinking of joining the Ordhodox Church because it was more faithful to traditional liturgy. That caused several people to come out and say the same thing. When I pointed out that this would place them outside of communion with the Chair of Peter, this was blown off as less important than liturgical tradition.

It cfan be very frightening to the Church that people would put liturgical tradition above communion with the successor of Peter. Even in the mainstream Catholic Church, we do have a valid liturgy. But we also have full communion with the successor of Peter. For some people to say that they would rather give up the communion with the Vicar of Christ in favor of liturgical tradition can be very disturbing to the Church. The question that it raises in certain quarters of the Church is whether this kind of thinking is the individual speaking or the collective. It it is the collective, this causes great concerns about its fidelity to the Church. Thus the Church has to treat slowly.

Whatever happens, let’s pray that it works out as God wants it to work out with full communion and no rescentments.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mick321]

FROM MY PREVIOUS POST:
Just what should a reformed SSPX look like? Their leadership? Their organization? Their sacraments? Their chapels? Their teaching?

Easy - none as to leadership and organization. The same as the rest of the Church as to the other questions. Do you really think the Church will allow an organization that defied Papal authority for decades to come into the Church as an integral unit? Or to have their own separate sacraments and teaching?

It is my understanding that the Society already has bishops, priests, religious and laity serving in chapels, seminaries and missions throughout the world.

I have no way to know what the Church will allow in this case. Some Eastern churches have already managed to return - as integral units - with much of their tradition and organization intact.

Certainly, no Catholic or group of Catholics have the authority to add to or delete from the seven sacraments or the sanctity thereof. I have no evidence that the Society teaches otherwise.

I admit that my personal experience is limited to less than 15 TLM offerings at three different SSPX chapels in California. On those occasions, the priests offered precise EF Tridentine masses that I was able to follow word for word in my 1962 Roman Daily Missal. Without exception, Holy Communion was distributed by a properly vested priest, on the tongue, at the communion rail. Politics were checked at the door.

I suggest that on some matters, no reform is necessary.

Let’s talk about the others - the genuine deal breakers - and how to resolve them.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Greetings dear brother in Christ. I have some comments and some questions too if you are inclined to share your views.

JREducation
From what I have seen on these forums, the SSPX laity is often much more aggressive and much more hostile toward the mainstream Church than is the clergy of the SSPX.

Rory
I was interested to hear about your long flight with a Society priest. This might sound odd, but I think a small part of the reason that I am drawn to assist at Masses of the Society is that in my limited experience, the priests and bishops that I have met are almost to a man, uncommonly pleasant and amiable. They have been priests who appear to be at peace with God and their vocation. The resulting happiness and joy is infectious. Our pastor rarely speaks about the “crisis in the Church.” He preaches on prayer and penance and faith and obedience on a level that seems attainable for such a poor sinner as me. I guess he figures that we already know about “the crisis” or we wouldn’t be coming to his Masses.

As far as the laity, there is no such thing strictly speaking except for a third order. Although I know what you mean, I think it is important to clarify that most of us who assist at Society Masses only consider ourselves Catholic; we are not SSPX. You might find a pugnacious spirit from those who receive the sacraments from Society priests on the internet, but that does not seem like it would be a good cross-section of what a chapel might look like. There are a handful in our own chapel who seem to have become satisfied with the status quo. I think they are the ones you have met! Heh. But I think the rest of us are satisfied for now to pray our rosaries and hope for a regularization. I love our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI, and I sense his fatherly concern for souls like me who have decided to go to SSPX chapels. I would be very troubled if the Society leadership was behaving indifferently towards these overtures of His Holiness. Viva il Papa.

I have a question for you JR, that follows from the title of the thread “What’s Next?”. You have expressed doubts about the validity of the SSPX sacraments of matrimony and confession due to jurisdictional questions. If, and when regularization occurs, do you think we will be asked to repeat our marriage vows (if witnessed by a Society priest) and try to recall the mortal sins we have already confessed illicitly? Will confirmations be repeated conditionally, unconditionally, or not at all? What happens now when someone who has been receiving the sacraments from a Society priest repents and begins to go to an indult, FSSP, or Novus Ordo community? If the Church is currently accepting the validity of SSPX marriages, confessions, and confirmations it seems to add to the arguments given by the Society in favor of the view that they are valid. Any thoughts? Thanks much. May God keep and bless you in His infinite love. Thank you for your service in the Church.

Rory