SSPX

[JReducation]

Getting back on topic, what does everyone think will happen tomorrow? I’m hoping for full regularization, but I don’t think we will know until sometime next month.

The SSPX priests in the USA had better file their taxes.

Other than that, I don’t foresee much happening. It’s Divine Mercy Sunday. The Vatican does not work on Sundays, especially on major holy days. Unless the Vatican has already come up with an announcement and the Pope makes it at tomorrows blessing, but I doubt that. It doesn’t feel like the right time.

We won’t hear anything until later in the month.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Moore11]

Is the Doctrinal Preamble available online, at all? I would like to see what specific points are controversial for the SSPX.

Either way, I think it is fair to say that the Church needs the SSPX, and the SSPX needs the Church. To rupture the tie would hurt both parties. But of course, my loyalty would remain with the Church in Rome.

I agree, but in a way the SSPX needs the Church more. I do not believe they will survive without her. In some ways this is similar to other schisms but not really ones that have survived. 200 years down the road, they will have been long forgotten or be a force within the Church. I have and do sympathized with them. But I cannot sympathize with disobedience.

Bottom line is my salvation lies within Jesus and the Church he founded. And that salvation is in no way won or lost with the inclusion of the SSPX or not. I just feel that they could help steer the ship rather than go it alone in a dingy.

 

[jwinch2]

The SSPX priests in the USA had better file their taxes.

Other than that, I don’t foresee much happening. It’s Divine Mercy Sunday. The Vatican does not work on Sundays, especially on major holy days. Unless the Vatican has already come up with an announcement and the Pope makes it at tomorrows blessing, but I doubt that. It doesn’t feel like the right time.

We won’t hear anything until later in the month.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I suspect this is correct. The Holy See is going to want to look over the most recent response very very carefully to make sure things are squared away before releasing any information. I would also think, and I could easily be wrong here, that they might allow for some time for SSPX to disseminate any information internally rather than letting them here ir for the first time from the Holy Father.

 

[The_Scott]

I agree, but in a way the SSPX needs the Church more. I do not believe they will survive without her. In some ways this is similar to other schisms but not really ones that have survived. 200 years down the road, they will have been long forgotten or be a force within the Church. I have and do sympathized with them. But I cannot sympathize with disobedience.

I agree 100%. I actually meant to say that the SSPX needs the Church more. And I agree with your prediction; they’ll only be a forgotten body of priests in the future if they don’t reconcile.

It’s a lot like cutting a tube to a IV line. Sure, you’ll survive for a couple minutes, but you’ll ultimately wish you never cut that link.

 

[jwinch2]

Either way, I think it is fair to say that the Church needs the SSPX, and the SSPX needs the Church. To rupture the tie would hurt both parties. But of course, my loyalty would remain with the Church in Rome.

Agreed. I would much prefer that SSPX stay in the Church and that her charism remain.

However, I also feel that several of the congregations of diocesan right which have been formed in recent years and celebrate the EF of the Mass would likely make a push to become congregations of pontifical right in the event that SSPX and Rome cannot come to terms. Some of the smaller congregations of pontifical right would probably also look to expand under the same circumstances. There would likely be a few years where there was a void but there are a number of groups with similar foci which have sprung up in recent years so I believe that any gap would be filled in relatively short order.

Again, that is not what I want to happen, but I agree with those who have stated that SSPX needs the Church more than the Church needs SSPX for the reasons I outlined above.

 

[JReducation]

Is the Doctrinal Preamble available online, at all? I would like to see what specific points are controversial for the SSPX.

Either way, I think it is fair to say that the Church needs the SSPX, and the SSPX needs the Church. To rupture the tie would hurt both parties. But of course, my loyalty would remain with the Church in Rome.

Noooo.

The whole idea is that no one should know what it says except the Holy See the the SSPX leadership. This way, there are no outside opinions.

I feel both ways. I have felt hopeful before, for years actually, and been let down so part of me thinks “I’ll believe it when I see it” But then again I have to think that the recent dialogue between the two is encouraging. The Church has really handled this in the best possible way and in a way that involves so much patience and gentle guiding that it should be an example for parenting a difficult child. However, I think all signs are point to a resolution one way or the other very soon. I think I heard that the man in charge of these negotiations tendered his resignation and the Pope said he would consider it after Easter, and low and behold here we are with a hope of a resolution.

It would make sense not to let Cardinal Levada retire until this mess is over. Who knows, Cardinal Levada may be the next Cardinal Raztinger. He was never allowed to retire.

I always pray for reconciliation of any group but especially a group that could have the potential to help the whole Church right now. They need the Church and we need the passion. Its a win win if they can just be obedient. What an example to the rest of us if they can put pride aside and be obedient until death as is our calling.

I don’t mean to burst the bubble, but being realistic, I don’t think that the SSPX presence in the Church is going to be more noticeable than that of the Opus Dei, FSSP, Institute of Christ the King or even the Anglican Ordinariate. As much as the traditionalist camp loves to throw around numbers. The truth is that the SSPX is smaller than most religious communities. If I remember correctly, there are about 500 of them.

Their bishops are not in a position to take over a diocese, unless they commit to allowing the dioceses to proceed with the OF, Vatican II, CCC and allow the clergy and religious in the diocese their autonomy to choose. I don’t get the sense that these bishops are going to accept that. The only thing to do is to group the SSPX and confine it into one solid block such as an ordinariate or a prelature, where they have very little contact with the mainstream.

In fairness to these bishops, they can’t be left unemployed and they can’t all be the superior general. You can only have one of those. They may form some kind of governing council. I’m just guessing what can be done within current Canon Law.

The only other solution is to do what Bl. John Paul did for the Franciscans of the Immaculate and Opus Dei. With the Franciscans of the Immaculate, he told them to ignore Canon Law and just give him their constitutions and he signed off on them. With Opus Dei, he created a Prelature and then wrote it into Canon Law after the fact. The pope is always free to tell anyone to ignore the law or to amend the law.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

 

[Moore11]

Noooo.

The whole idea is that no one should know what it says except the Holy See the the SSPX leadership. This way, there are no outside opinions.

It would make sense not to let Cardinal Levada retire until this mess is over. Who knows, Cardinal Levada may be the next Cardinal Raztinger. He was never allowed to retire.

I don’t mean to burst the bubble, but being realistic, I don’t think that the SSPX presence in the Church is going to be more noticeable than that of the Opus Dei, FSSP, Institute of Christ the King or even the Anglican Ordinariate. As much as the traditionalist camp loves to throw around numbers. The truth is that the SSPX is smaller than most religious communities. If I remember correctly, there are about 500 of them.

Their bishops are not in a position to take over a diocese, unless they commit to allowing the dioceses to proceed with the OF, Vatican II, CCC and allow the clergy and religious in the diocese their autonomy to choose. I don’t get the sense that these bishops are going to accept that. The only thing to do is to group the SSPX and confine it into one solid block such as an ordinariate or a prelature, where they have very little contact with the mainstream.

In fairness to these bishops, they can’t be left unemployed and they can’t all be the superior general. You can only have one of those. They may form some kind of governing council. I’m just guessing what can be done within current Canon Law.

The only other solution is to do what Bl. John Paul did for the Franciscans of the Immaculate and Opus Dei. With the Franciscans of the Immaculate, he told them to ignore Canon Law and just give him their constitutions and he signed off on them. With Opus Dei, he created a Prelature and then wrote it into Canon Law after the fact. The pope is always free to tell anyone to ignore the law or to amend the law.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

It doesn’t burst my bubble. I have no grand illusions as to the “power” of the SSPX, however, when one sympathizes with Traditionalists there is no getting around this black eye, and to have this black eye removed would be a huge step forward in the situation.
If someone wants to identify or explain a Traditionalist view, it is always clouded and the SSPX is almost certainly brought up. To have this solved would remove a ton of pollution from the waters of traditionalism.

 

[The_Scott]

Noooo.

The whole idea is that no one should know what it says except the Holy See the the SSPX leadership. This way, there are no outside opinions.

Thanks for the answer, Brother! I appreciate it, and in hindsight I should have realized this important fact.

 

[curlycool89]

Heterical? That depend on what the poster means by “deficient,” doesn’t it? I think the Pauline sacraments are valid and can be beautiful in their way, but are sometimes deficient in clarity – the wording has ambiguities that can be easily exploited by the heterodox. Conversely, the traditional sacraments so clearly express in words what they signify that they are a catechesis in themselves. I don’t think I’ve said anything heterical, have I? But perhaps “deficient” is a loaded word, insinuating more than the poster meant by it.

At any rate, I admit that we’re getting off-topic and that a real discussion of this is beyond the bounds allowed by CAF.

Do you think that Eastern Christians have “deficient” Sacraments too? After all, they leave things at a pretty high level (little details) and don’t even use the word Transubstantiation. They leave it as a mystery for the most part (even call them Mysteries).

I said nothing about the OF in my post, did I? See, you’re making unnecessary presumptions.

Canon Law allows me to go where I feel there is a spiritual advantage. If I want to drive an hour to want to hear a magnificent pipe organ I’m in effect telling my local parish their music is deficient from my standpoint. But according to your earlier post, I could not hear the pipe organ because you can make a claim that I see the local liturgy as being somewhat deficient, no?

There’s a difference between saying the Sacraments are deficient and the liturgy is deficient. Music does not effect the validity of the Sacraments, and you are free to choose based on something like music or preaching or because one priest speaks english better (actually, I happen to like a local priest who does not speak what people would consider perfect english, but it’s for other reasons).

So then by your argument, deficient in clarity, when you have people attending the EF who do not speak Latin, does that make the EF deficient? As how can it be a catechesis when one does not understand a word being said?

That’s a good catch actually, and it leads to a fundamental philosophical problem. The Sacraments are the Sacraments regardless of whether we understand them or not. They simply are what they are. It does not matter if one thinks they are not being explained “definitively” or “clearly” enough, they are still the Sacraments. Our belief in them doesn’t make them so, they exist because God causes them to exist.

I agree, but in a way the SSPX needs the Church more. I do not believe they will survive without her. In some ways this is similar to other schisms but not really ones that have survived. 200 years down the road, they will have been long forgotten or be a force within the Church. I have and do sympathized with them. But I cannot sympathize with disobedience.

Bottom line is my salvation lies within Jesus and the Church he founded. And that salvation is in no way won or lost with the inclusion of the SSPX or not. I just feel that they could help steer the ship rather than go it alone in a dingy.

Very true.

 

[JReducation]

It doesn’t burst my bubble. I have no grand illusions as to the “power” of the SSPX, however, when one sympathizes with Traditionalists there is no getting around this black eye, and to have this black eye removed would be a huge step forward in the situation.
If someone wants to identify or explain a Traditionalist view, it is always clouded and the SSPX is almost certainly brought up. To have this solved would remove a ton of pollution from the waters of traditionalism.

This I agree with completely. Right now the SSPX is like the fly in the soup. Every time someone says, “Great soup!” Someone else says, “But there’s a fly in it.”

If the SSPX were to become a self-contained unit, it would take that black eye away from those who lean toward traditionalism, in part because the word traditionalism may cease to exist. We may just go back to being Catholics with different needs and different tastes. I call it unity in diversity. That’s what the word catholic implies anyway. It’s not synonymous with clone.

It would also help the rest of us who do not refer to ourselves as traditionalists but are often confused as such when we speak about returning to the Franciscan tradition or traditional Italian devotions, etc.

It seems that the word tradition has become a dirty word.

I’ll give you and example. When we were working on our constitutions, the wording made reference to the Franciscan tradition of the 13th century. The Canon Lawyer immediately asked us to explain that word. It made him uncomfortable, because he thought we were going to become so rogue group. He breathed easy when we explained that we have a tradition and culture that goes back eight centuries.

Now, when I say to another person that we don’t use Gregorian chant, because it’s not part of our tradition and that we never question bishops or popes, because it’s part of our tradition to remain quiet, the Traditionalist gets upset. What’s there to get upset about? It’s our tradition. We don’t question popes or bishops unless they ask us to sin and we don’t do Gregorian chant.

Maybe, if the SSPX were to become something like the Anglican ordinariate or like the Opus Dei, it would simply become another institution in the Church that has its own niche. The rest of us can go back to using the term tradition without people squirming.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[giuseppeTO]

That’s a big canonical problem, because as far as the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, the SSPX does not exist. Correct me if I’m wrong. I understand that it was erected as a diocesan institute and it was later suppressed.

You are correct and it would appear to be a problem that has been wrestled with and resolved to the satisfaction of both the Society and the Vatican. So perhaps we will see the Pope approve something here that has not been granted in the past?

As to independent priests, I’m not sure what you mean. Canon Law is very clear that every priest, religious and layman must be incardinated into a diocese, a religious community, a society of apostolic life, a secular institute or an autonomous monastery. There are no independent priests, unless they’re schismatic. If they’re not schismatic, they have to belong to someone.

These would be priests who have left their diocese usually over a dispute concerning the celebration of the EF and have appealed to the SSPX for availability of sacraments. In numerous cases over the years, the SSPX has accommodated them. I don’t believe Bishop Fellay would “cut them loose” so to speak but would look for a way to continue to accommodate them. As you have said, the solution will be very interesting and perhaps unprecedented.

 

[JReducation]

You are correct and it would appear to be a problem that has been wrestled with and resolved to the satisfaction of both the Society and the Vatican. So perhaps we will see the Pope approve something here that has not been granted in the past?

These would be priests who have left their diocese usually over a dispute concerning the celebration of the EF and have appealed to the SSPX for availability of sacraments. In numerous cases over the years, the SSPX has accommodated them. I don’t believe Bishop Fellay would “cut them loose” so to speak but would look for a way to continue to accommodate them. As you have said, the solution will be very interesting and perhaps unprecedented.

If they have left their dioceses without permission, they are renegade priests. This is a canonical conundrum… The Church has the authority to laicize a renegade priest and not tell him. Depending on the gravity of the offense, there can be an automatic excommunication for walking. I don’t think it applies to diocesan priests. It certainly applies to men in religious orders. If you walk, you’re history with the Church. You can never come back. You can be reconciled with the Church, but you can never come back to religious life or any form of ministry, even as a layman. I have seen cases where they are not even allowed to be CCD teachers or lectors at mass. They can attend mass and receive the sacraments, once they are reconciled with the Church, but they may not participate in Church life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Cider]

Is it common at this site for this to happen? I saw someone mention staying within site rules regarding the two forms and it seems that whenever there hope in this area that it is squished by accusations and assumptions and personal attacks. Is this the norm?

stick around and you will get the lay of the land here

 

[TimothyH]

The other problem is the use of the word deficient. The Holy Father and the SCDW have never used the word deficient, because the sacraments either are or are not. There is not such thing as a sacrament that is more efficient here and less efficient there. The Holy Father used the correct wording. Some people took the liberty of getting creative. That creativity does not take away from the efficaciousness of the sacrament. It is confusing and can be disrespectful to the sacrament and the congregation, but the sacrament loses nothing. I believe that’s where the thread went over the cliff.

This is exactly my point.

Grace was won by Jesus, grace comes to us through Mary, and grace is an action of the Holy Spirit, and the means by which God transmits that grace to man are the sacraments.

A sacrament therefor is either a legitimate means by which man recieves God’s grace or it is not. It cannot be both a legitimate means by which man recieves God’s grace and also deficient at the same time. The action of the Holy Spirit is not more or less based on the language used, the architecture of the Church or whether the minister of the sacrament is a member of a certain society. The sacrament either works or it doesn’t and the truth is that our own disposition has more to do with the sacraments effectiveness than anything else. The state of our heart has more to do with the how well that grace sanctifies us than any Church architecture or choice of language ever could.

We can say we prefer it one way or another but either the bread becomes Jesus or it doesn’t. Either the penitent is absolved or he isn’t. Either original sin is washed away or it isn’t. For me, that’s enough. I’m just happy to be allowed in the door.

-Tim-

 

[giuseppeTO]

If they have left their dioceses without permission, they are renegade priests. This is a canonical conundrum… The Church has the authority to laicize a renegade priest and not tell him. Depending on the gravity of the offense, there can be an automatic excommunication for walking. I don’t think it applies to diocesan priests. It certainly applies to men in religious orders. If you walk, you’re history with the Church. You can never come back. You can be reconciled with the Church, but you can never come back to religious life or any form of ministry, even as a layman. I have seen cases where they are not even allowed to be CCD teachers or lectors at mass. They can attend mass and receive the sacraments, once they are reconciled with the Church, but they may not participate in Church life.

My money is on the Holy Father approving a solution that heals all and accommodates all. We may all be startled by the solution.

 

[ProVobis]

There’s a difference between saying the Sacraments are deficient and the liturgy is deficient. Music does not effect the validity of the Sacraments, and you are free to choose based on something like music or preaching or because one priest speaks english better (actually, I happen to like a local priest who does not speak what people would consider perfect english, but it’s for other reasons).

Your point is moot. Have you read Br. JR’s post on deficiency?

But deficiency aside, there are probably far more Anglophone OFers who wouldn’t attend a Spanish Mass if that were the only one around so why are you pointing fingers at the EFers?

 

[JReducation]

My money is on the Holy Father approving a solution that heals all and accommodates all. We may all be startled by the solution.

It’s going to be a little hard if any of these priests are regular priests, because he can’t return them to their communities. He can secularize them. That would leave them free to join a diocese or to join the SSPX. But they have to choose to join something or be laicized. By doctrine, every Catholic must have an Ordinary. These men will have to apply to a diocese, apply to the SSPX or ask for a dispensation.

I doubt that they’ll ask for the latter, since they seem to want to be priests. That narrows it down to two choices, find a bishop or join the SSPX.

The question in my mind is why they haven’t asked for admission to the SSPX. That’s interesting. Does anyone know of such a priest?

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

 

[YoungTradCath]

It’s going to be a little hard if any of these priests are regular priests, because he can’t return them to their communities. He can secularize them. That would leave them free to join a diocese or to join the SSPX. But they have to choose to join something or be laicized. By doctrine, every Catholic must have an Ordinary. These men will have to apply to a diocese, apply to the SSPX or ask for a dispensation.

I doubt that they’ll ask for the latter, since they seem to want to be priests. That narrows it down to two choices, find a bishop or join the SSPX.

The question in my mind is why they haven’t asked for admission to the SSPX. That’s interesting. Does anyone know of such a priest?

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

I don’t follow. Do you mean a SSPX-affiliated regular priest who nevertheless is not formally part of the SSPX?

 

[JReducation]

I don’t follow. Do you mean a SSPX-affiliated regular priest who nevertheless is not formally part of the SSPX?

Let’s say that I abandon my diocese and start working with the SSPX, but I never formally join them.

I’m automatically suspended for walking.

The Holy Father can laicize me, if I fail to return after several warnings.

Let’s say that the SSPX comes to full communion with the Church. That will not include me, because I’m not a member of the SSPX. I’m a member of the diocese of Juno, Alaska. Therefore, I’m still suspended and now the SSPX is in and I’m still out. In order to get in, I have to ask for forgiveness and then either apply to the SSPX for admission or find a bishop who will take me in, if my former diocese does not want me.

Let’s look at the second scenario. I’m a regular priest. I’ve walked and started to work with the SSPX.

I’ve committed a double whammy.

Because I’m a religious I can’t walk away from my community. I owe obedience to my community, my founder and my superior. If after several warnings I do not come home, I can excommunicate myself. Religious vows are not to be toyed with. The Church takes them very seriously.

The superior of the community has the right to ask for an indult of secularization, which dismisses me from the consecrated life. Depending on the rules of the community, the superior can also ask for dismissal from the clerical state.

Let’s suppose that the SSPX is now in and I’m still excommunicated. I have no faculties and no one can give me faculties without getting himself into big trouble.

Now what’s left. I have to reconcile with the Church. I have to ask my community to take me back. My superior may have already started the dismissal process or has finished it and I don’t know it. I now find out that I’m not longer a consecrated priest. I’m a secular priest without faculties. Now I have to find a bishop who will ignore my history and take me in or apply to the SSPX to take me in. The only way to get faculties is to be incardinated somewhere.

In other words, just because the SSPX comes home, all of those other priests who are cooperating with the SSPX against the wishes of their bishops or their religious superiors are not coming in with them. They can’t come in, because the Preamble is only for the SSPX. These men are not members of the SSPX. They are cooperators. They have to go through a different process to come in, if they choose to do so. No one can force them to do so.

In the current law, there is no way to grandfather you in. The only way would be if the pope grandfathered you.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[curlycool89]

Your point is moot. Have you read Br. JR’s post on deficiency?

But deficiency aside, there are probably far more Anglophone OFers who wouldn’t attend a Spanish Mass if that were the only one around so why are you pointing fingers at the EFers?

I’m just making sure things are clearly understood.