SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter giuseppeTO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Vatican, I think, could certainly and unilaterally determine and articulate what, if any, canonical status the Society is to have or enjoy even without consulting the Society. But if you mean it is inevitable that a reunion or reconciliation is going to happen, then I would say that - at least at present - it could be argued in the inner circles of both parties that the status quo is best for the time being and the foreseeable future: Imagine if in an attempted reunion it unexpectedly resulted in something like a 60/40 split, with a large number of priests and Society property being retained by the dissenters, or even going over to the Sedevacantists? Neither party would want such an eventuality, at least as far as reason would suggest./QUO

Agreed, but no one except the parties involved know the how and when this will all happen, and how everyone is going to respond. We do know that both sides want reunion
 
I sincerely believe that both sides want closure and let the chips fall where they may. Both are smart enough to know that there is no way of pleasing everyone and no way of predicting how many will reconcile and how many will walk.

If you had a sure way of knowing that next year would be a better time, then you should wait. But it does not look at that way.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV
 
I sincerely believe that both sides want closure and let the chips fall where they may. Both are smart enough to know that there is no way of pleasing everyone and no way of predicting how many will reconcile and how many will walk.

If you had a sure way of knowing that next year would be a better time, then you should wait. But it does not look at that way.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV
Agreed, it appears that something is going to happen soon, maybe not on the 15th but not too much longer…
 
The greatest concern of the CDF is that the laity is not becoming involved in the internal affairs of the SSPX. This is dangerous to the laity.
If you are speaking about the laity involved with the SSPX, this is the nature of the beast and a result of the past fifty years.

As for the laity in the Church, it is a bad habit many of us, including myself (which is a hold-over from my decades with traditional groups outside the Church), have gotten into, and a hard one to break. Suddenly, with the advent of the internet fora, we are all experts on everything - including Holy Mother Church and what She should and shouldn’t be doing.
 
If you are speaking about the laity involved with the SSPX, this is the nature of the beast and a result of the past fifty years.

As for the laity in the Church, it is a bad habit many of us, including myself (which is a hold-over from my decades with traditional groups outside the Church), have gotten into, and a hard one to break. Suddenly, with the advent of the internet fora, we are all experts on everything - including Holy Mother Church and what She should and shouldn’t be doing.
I would apply it to both. Those lay people who are sympathetic to the SSPX have been told over and over again that while they can satisfy their Sunday obligation attending mass at an SSPX chapel, they are not to endorse the SSPX disobedience. In a worse case scenario, where all or part of the priests and bishops in the Society Walks, they would be in schism. But any lay person who follows will also be in schism. It’s automatic. It’s what happened to the first generation Orthodox. They were schismatic. They followed schismatic clergy. Their descendants are not, but the original group was. If the worse were to happen, all things being equal, we would have to wait a few generations to deal with the SSPX as an independent Church.

As far as the mainstream Catholic who is or is not Traditionalist, but has no connections to the SSPX, the issue becomes one of communion of governance. I believe that I spoke about this. Pope Benedict has been speaking about this a great deal. He has said that there are three required areas of communion: faith and morals, sacraments, and governance. He has explained that one cannot be part of the Catholic Church and defy her. He’s not talking about dissenting on one or two points. That’s not a good thing, but it does not add up to defiance. Defiance is when the Holy See, which is not only the pope, speaks to you directly and you say, “I will not comply.” That goes beyond disobedience.

In other words, if there is a rupture, which we know is going to happen, even if it’s a few hundred people instead of one million, the rest of us cannot turn our backs on the Holy See and say, “I understand” or “I’m sympathetic” or “They got a bum deal.” What the Church expects from us is, “The Holy See has the right to command your obedience and you have a duty to give it.” That’s communion of governance. It involves both obeying and impressing upon others the obligation to obey.
**
The Poverello of Assisi understood that every charism as a gift of the Holy Spirit existed to serve the Body of Christ, which is the Church; therefore he always acted in full communion with the ecclesial authorities. In the life of the Saints there is no contradiction between prophetic charism and the charism of governance, and if tension arises, they know to patiently await the times determined by the Holy Spirit.**

Pope Benedict on St. Francis and obedience

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
In other words, if there is a rupture, which we know is going to happen, even if it’s a few hundred people instead of one million, the rest of us cannot turn our backs on the Holy See and say, “I understand” or “I’m sympathetic” or “They got a bum deal.” What the Church expects from us is, “The Holy See has the right to command your obedience and you have a duty to give it.” That’s communion of governance. It involves both obeying and impressing upon others the obligation to obey.
I think this might need clarification. The Pope does not have an charism of infallibility when it comes to governance, as he does with morals and doctrines. He is supreme, of course, but that does not mean that his supreme decisions concerning governance are infallible. In other words, I believe a faithful Catholic could very easily remain true and loyal to the Pope and at the same time say that his decision involving the SSPX was imprudent, unwise, rash, a “bum deal” or whatever else. A brief perusal of Catholic history shows a plethora of Papal decisions that fall into those categories (an example in the history of the Franciscans might be Pope John XXII, the Avignon papacy, etc). Are we not justified to hold the view that Popes can make bad, nay even terrible decisions? I don’t see this as turning my back on the Holy See as long as I do not take the next step and say that because the Pope made a bad decision, he doesn’t have the authority to make a bad decision (his supreme governance).
  • PAX
Edited to add: I just wanted to make it clear that I am speaking on matters of governance, not morals or doctrine.
 
networkedblogs.com/woJNl

I hope this is true!
Over at Rorate Caeli they have just translated the following English translation of an article from Le Figaro today: Rome and Écône on the verge of reaching an agreement. They are translating this piece as I write this post, and the first words in the article by Jean-Marie Guénois:
“The signing of a document establishing the relations between the Holy See and the disciples of Abp. Lefebvre is a matter of days. Officially, the Vatican awaits the response of Bp. Bernard Fellay, the chief of the Lefebvrists. As soon as it is received in Rome - “it is a matter of days, and no longer of weeks”, - it will be immediately examined. If it conforms to expectations, the Holy See will very quickly announce a historic agreement with this group of faithful, known under the name of “integrists”. But unofficially, and with the greatest discretion, emissaries have worked, from both sides, to “reach an agreement”. In the past few weeks, the final adjustments have been concluded between Rome and Écône in order to better respond to the demands of “clarifications” asked for by the Vatican last March 16.”
Read the rest over there as they continue to translate.
As I have appealed only recently: Oremus. I believe such a reconciliation would be of great general good, both for the Society of Saint Pius X and also for the Church as a whole. The Church has something to offer them it goes without saying, but so does the Society of Saint Pius X have something to offer – a point which I think Don Nicola Bux brought out quite eloquently.
May I appeal to all of you who are reading to re-double your prayers?
I will certainly re-double mine.

Peace of Christ,
 
I think this might need clarification. The Pope does not have an charism of infallibility when it comes to governance, as he does with morals and doctrines. He is supreme, of course, but that does not mean that his supreme decisions concerning governance are infallible. In other words, I believe a faithful Catholic could very easily remain true and loyal to the Pope and at the same time say that his decision involving the SSPX was imprudent, unwise, rash, a “bum deal” or whatever else. A brief perusal of Catholic history shows a plethora of Papal decisions that fall into those categories (an example in the history of the Franciscans might be Pope John XXII, the Avignon papacy, etc). Are we not justified to hold the view that Popes can make bad, nay even terrible decisions? I don’t see this as turning my back on the Holy See as long as I do not take the next step and say that because the Pope made a bad decision, he doesn’t have the authority to make a bad decision (his supreme governance).
  • PAX
Edited to add: I just wanted to make it clear that I am speaking on matters of governance, not morals or doctrine.
If you read what Pope Benedict has been saying through all of this is that the pope does not need infallibility to govern and the faithful are still bound to obey, regardless of what we think. This is why he has used St. Francis three times in two years to teach on governance.

He told the bishops of Italy that they needed to take this example and put it into practice ASAP. He just told the bishops of Austria the same thing. And he said this two years ago at a public audience with the laity.

He’s trying to drive home a point. Papal decisions must be obeyed and complaining is not what saints do.

If one reads Light of the World, he speaks to the issue of the SSPX as an issue of obedience, not a matter of who’s right wrong, but who has the right to command obedience. He makes it clear that only the Primacy has that right. Pope Benedict does not tolerate defiance very well.

He is much better with intellectual dissent. He loves a good debate. He’s a scholar. What should we expect. But when he says jump, he expects everyone to ask “How high?” He is also very clear that he does not like things to drag on. He will expect the Catholic population to comply and move on.

I believe that’s why he continues to bring up St. Francis. St. Francis and St. Dominic were that kind of men and they formed their followers that way, lay and religious. You obey and you move on. You don’t dwell on it. You don’t discuss what has been decided. You don’t bring it up again. There are other things to do. The pope doesn’t have to be right to be the pope. Unless he commands you to sin, there is nothing to discuss.

Pope Benedict seems very insistent on bringing back the spirituality of St. Benedict, St. Francis and St. Dominic. Francis and Dominic were influenced by Benedict. He wants to bring it back to laity, clergy and religious, because he speaks to all three groups about the same theme.

In our American mind, we think that if it’s not an infallible statement, it can be questioned and discussed until eternity. But that’s not the mendicant mindset. Pope Benedict identifies very much with Francis and Dominic. He brings them up as models of Catholicism every chance he gets and he never fails to go on and on about their unquestioning obedience. Read the link that I provided above.

On the surface it appears to be about St. Francis, but underneath, the Pope is speaking about communion of governance.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
I got the following from here: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/04/urgentfor-record-le-figaro-rome-and.html
But the true “revolution” that Benedict XVI intends to leave before the eyes of the history of the Catholic Church is elsewhere. It is not related to peripheral aspects of the Catholic Church. These have already enraged the groups opposed to this reconciliation. The so-called “Progressives” of the Conciliar Church who see the “gains” of Vatican II questioned. The “ultras” within the Lefebvrist ranks who see in this a betrayal and a compromise with Modernist Rome.
This revolution aims for an enlarged vision of the Catholic Church. Benedict XVI, the theologian, has never accepted that in 1962 the bimillennial Catholic Church would have cut herself from the culture and strength of her past. More than a reconciliation with the Lefebvrists, he aims, with this gesture, for a reconciliation of the Catholic Church with herself.
 
networkedblogs.com/woJNl

I hope this is true!

I will certainly re-double mine.

Peace of Christ,
Don’t take out the party hats yet.
  1. The Traditionalist media has a very bad habit of posting information only to have to retract it when Bishop Felay says that he never authorized it.
  2. It is very bad form to release information that is strictly confidential. If they are releasing it, either they’re speculating or their is a leak. Leaks are not always reliable, because things can change in three hours.
  3. There is nothing new. All it says is that if the clarifications satisfy the Holy See, the separation is over. We knew this.
  4. Even when the reconciliation takes place, it’s still going to be incomplete. There will be a schism. Someone on here wrote the other day something that struck me. I’ll paraphrase it. He or she said that the SSPX laity were more resistent to the Vatican than the SSPX clergy and it’s the laity that has been holding things up. On another Traditionalist site I read comments that if the SSPX compromised on anything, they would lose the financial support of those folks, which is not nice of them to do and is a schismatic act.
I believe that there is going to be a reconciliation. I don’t foresee 100% of the SSPX coming over.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/blog-san-pietro-e-dintorni-en/detail/articolo/lefebvrians-st-pius-x-14294/

It appears a response has been sent from SSPX to Rome. Let us pray that this is a sign things are moving towards reunion.

Peace,
According to the bulletin that we get from the Vatican, the response was sent on Wednesday. That’s all that the bulletin said. We were not supposed to say anything until it became public. I guess the cat’s out of the bag. Apparently, not even the SSPX superiors know what’s in it There were individuals, selected from both sides to carry messages back and forth between Bishop Fellay and Cardinal Levada. But they were not to communicate with anyone else, nor were their identities to be made public to either the mainstream Catholic or the SSPX.

My personal take and I can be wrong, is that it has come down to a decision that Cardinal Levada feels that Bishop Fellay must make alone and he alone must bear the moral consequences if there is a schism. This is my impression from the wording of the original message and the way that the communication has been handled during this past month. Bishop Fellay will go down in history as the man who saved the day or the man who led the schism of the 21st century.

From a translation of a short talk that Bishop Fellay gave, it sounded as if he feels that he must obey, though he made no specific reference to the Preamble. My thinking was, “What else could he be referring to?” Someone linked to it, either on this thread a similar one. It was hard to understand it all, because it’s a very literal translation from French to English. But that’s the gist that I got out of it. Correct me if I’m wrong. I’m not privy to what the SSPX is thinking. Nor do I want to be. It’s none of my business. It’s solely the business of its leadership. I wouldn’t dare intrude to give them directions or unsolicited advice.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
According to the bulletin that we get from the Vatican, the response was sent on Wednesday. That’s all that the bulletin said. We were not supposed to say anything until it became public. I guess the cat’s out of the bag. Apparently, not even the SSPX superiors know what’s in it There were individuals, selected from both sides to carry messages back and forth between Bishop Fellay and Cardinal Levada. But they were not to communicate with anyone else, nor were their identities to be made public to either the mainstream Catholic or the SSPX.

My personal take and I can be wrong, is that it has come down to a decision that Cardinal Levada feels that Bishop Fellay must make alone and he alone must bear the moral consequences if there is a schism. This is my impression from the wording of the original message and the way that the communication has been handled during this past month. Bishop Fellay will go down in history as the man who saved the day or the man who led the schism of the 21st century.
Its interesting that you bring that up. I was doing some reading last night and came across this in the Rule of Saint Benedict:
Let the Abbot always bear in mind
that at the dread Judgment of God
there will be an examination of these two matters:
his teaching and the obedience of his disciples.
And let the Abbot be sure
that any lack of profit
the master of the house may find in the sheep
will be laid to the blame of the shepherd…
That is a heavy burden to bear and helps a bit to put things into context regarding how Bishop Fellay may be feeling. Also, it explains a bit how you are likely feeling at being the superior of the FFV.
 
I certainly hope there is not a schism. The SSPX offer the only traditional sacraments within 300 miles of me. My Bishop, and the Bishop of the neighboring diocese, are extremely antagonistic towards anything vaguely traditional, despite the Motu Proprio. I know this from personal experience and by talking to priests as well. One priest had to explain what he was “up to” when he started chanting the Agnus Dei in Latin. The SSPX offers me an oasis of reverence and tradition in a desert of liturgical abuse and irreverence. If the SSPX are declared schismatic, there will be no EF for anyone of us in this area to go to.

St. Pius X, pray for us. St. Joseph, pray for us. Blessed Virgin Mary, intercede for us.
  • PAX
 
My Bishop, and the Bishop of the neighboring diocese, are extremely antagonistic towards anything vaguely traditional, despite the Motu Proprio. I know this from personal experience and by talking to priests as well. One priest had to explain what he was “up to” when he started chanting the Agnus Dei in Latin. The SSPX offers me an oasis of reverence and tradition in a desert of liturgical abuse and irreverence. If the SSPX are declared schismatic, there will be no EF for anyone of us in this area to go to.
I am sorry to hear that things are that way in your diocese. Hopefully, it will get better sooner rather than later. Personally, I was not blown away by the EF of the Mass when I attended and prefer a reverent OF at this time. However, I recognize that some find it more spiritually fulfilling and rich. Thus, I am hopeful that all who desire access to it will have it within reasonable distance. It can be tough, particularly in non-urban diocese as things get pretty spread out. Having at least one option per deanery would seem to be a logical way to ensure reasonable access to start with. And, if demand is such that more is needed, adjustments can be made to provide it.
St. Pius X, pray for us. St. Joseph, pray for us. Blessed Virgin Mary, intercede for us.
Indeed.
 
The value of keeping all of these discussions private is that both sides can modify their former positions on certain points without inviting the scrutiny and criticism that could come from both pro and con sympathizers inside and outside of the Society.

I am sure that the rudiments of the canonical solution is also important concerning the Society and those traditional orders who are attached to the Society (Dominicans, Benedictines, etc). My understanding is that Rome has provided an agreeable solution along those lines. So if indeed both parties are on the verge of an agreement, some of the finer details of the canonical solution must be clearly understood and agreed to in advance of the announcement of an accord. Among these details would be the status of the independent priests who are not part of the SSPX but who rely on the them for Confirmation and chrism, for example. It would seem that the personal prelature, if that is the structure, would need to accommodate priests who were not SSPX and do not intend to join the order. And then, there is the discussion of titular titles of SSPX Bishops who retire.
 
I certainly hope there is not a schism. The SSPX offer the only traditional sacraments within 300 miles of me. My Bishop, and the Bishop of the neighboring diocese, are extremely antagonistic towards anything vaguely traditional, despite the Motu Proprio. . . . The SSPX offers me an oasis of reverence and tradition in a desert of liturgical abuse and irreverence.
Sounds like a de facto schism already in your heart, sad to say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top