SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter giuseppeTO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mattkubes said:
Their site says 551 priests and 192 seminarians present in 63 countries at 750 Mass centres. Looks like they also have a couple hundred other religious.

laportelatine.org/international/statistiques/stat.php
Click to expand...
That’s part of the problem. The religious are not members of the SSPX as the SSPX is a secular society. The religious are members of other groups that are affiliated with the SSPX.

Like the 5 convents of Carmelite nuns listed on the page you linked to.

They will not be covered as they must come back to the Order or, as the Transpline Redemptorists did, enter into their own agreement with Rome and change their name.
 
YoungTradCath said:
That is the ICRSS, not the FSSP. 🙂
Click to expand...
Oops, wrong team. 😊
jwinch2 said:
I had no idea that these groups even existed until today. I was searching some websites on Benedictine Spirituality and came across a monastery which seems to fall into that same category.

Right after I saw that, I read your post which was kind of odd.

Do you know anything about these groups? Have any of them been heard from regarding normalization of relations with Rome?
Click to expand...
I only know about the Franciscan ones. They have been dismissed from the order. There are some clauses in the Rule of St. Francis that allow for dismissal. One is that the pope must be obeyed without questions. The other is that Francis must be obeyed without questions. The next is that the only question you can ask is, “Is this a sin?” Only the Church can define sin, not you.

The other is that only the Superior can admit new brothers. They started a novitiate. They have no canonical authority to start a novitiate. That raises a question as to whether their vows are even valid. You must make a valid novitiate to make valid vows. If the person doing the admitting has not authority to admit, then is the novitiate valid?

There is another issue with them and it has to do with priests. You cannot have priests in control. Control of the community is by vote and everyone who is in perpetual vows has a vote and is eligible for election. They only allow priests to be elected. Not sure if only priests can vote. In any case, the elected superior is questionable.

The second issue to do with priests is that you can’t turn the order into an order for priests just because there is a shortage. To do so, would exclude St. Francis from the order that he founded. He wouldn’t be able to govern and would have no apostolic place. They only allow priests to serve in the apostolate. They have a Father - Brother distinction that is not allowed. Father and Brother are certainly titles that are allowed. The distinction in rights is not allowed.

That takes us to the next problem. They only allow priests to study. If you’re not going to be a priest, you can’t go on to advanced studies. If you did not have them before you came, you’re not going to get them. If you did have them, you’re not going to use them, because your function in the community is to serve and pray for the priests. This is an honorable vocation in an order like the Dominicans. They were founded this way from day one. This is not the way that Franciscans were founded.

They would have to dismantle this whole infrastructure to come back into the Church or they would have to drop the name Franciscan.

That’s what the Tansalpine Redemptorists did. They did not want to accommodate to the Redemptorist constitutions (the Redemptorists don’t have a rule). They had to drop the name Redeptorist and change their habit as well. It’s similar, but not quite the Redemptorist habit. The same with the name.

My guess is that those other religious would have to go through the same process. Either conform to their communities or change their name and ask Rome to approve their statutes.

In the case of the Capuchins the situation is a little complex, because the leader is a dismissed Capuchin. Once you’re dismissed, you cannot be readmitted. I guess that the Minister General can ask the pope to wave that rule for this one instance. If the man agrees to everything else.

Religious communities do not take in groups that live a different way of life. That’s contrary to the word “community”. The SSPX are not religious. They don’t have to live like other diocesan priests. There is no prescribed way of life for diocesan priests. There is a prescribed way of life for every religious community.
The_Scott said:
Do we know how big SSPX is? Do they have a substantial number of priests?
Click to expand...
They’re very small. I believe the Holy Father mentioned about 500 priests. That’s tiny when you stand them alongside the Dominicans, Jesuits, Franciscans, Carmelites, Salesians, Redemptorists, Maryknoll, Vincentians and Augustinians who number in the thousands or the Franciscans who pass the one million mark. I believe that the Aiugustinians are almost at the one million mark. These communities also have women. Their influence is huge.

What makes the SSPX so noticeable is the laity. They have a great fan club. In reality, if you gathered the laity attached to Dominicans, Franciscans or Carmelites, the numbers are impressive. But they are a rather quiet crowd. 🤷

The thing about having 500 men in the SSPX is that they do not have to live in community. They can disperse their men more than we can. For example, most religious avoid having a house out in the ends of the earth without a sister house nearby.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
Regarding the religious affiliated with the SSPX, I would hope the Holy Father would include them in his solution, but we will see. He certainly has the authority to do this.

As the to influence of the SSPX, I agree with Br JR, it’s felt beyond the 500 priests for a few reasons. Another one of them is that many SSPX priests are on planes almost all the time, saying the TLM in this one remote area every 1st Sunday, this other remote area every 2nd Sunday, and so on.

Also, the SSPX doesn’t have a particular charism/spirituality within the Church (at least they don’t see it that way) that is alongside others, like Franciscans or Jesuits. They see this is a fight to preserve a lot of things that would have been nearly lost, and to restore things, change things in general throughout the Church for everyone.

We can argue about what this exactly means or how legitimate it is, and we can always discuss their methods. But the general principle that not all the major changes of the last years (Vatican II, the NO, new code of canon law, changes in style of catechesis, etc etc)etc etc) have had good results or completely good results and some things need to be clarified (mild word) or reversed or condemned or abrogated (stronger words) … this is something many people sympathize with.

I am one of them. I’ve been to only one SSPX Mass in my life. But spiritually, I sympathize very much with the priests of the SSPX and the laity attached to them, even if I don’t agree with everything that has happened.
 
newyorkcatholic said:
Regarding the religious affiliated with the SSPX, I would hope the Holy Father would include them in his solution, but we will see. He certainly has the authority to do this.
Click to expand...
I suppose, and Br. JR would know more than I do, that the Pope would certainly intend to do so, but that each group of religious affiliated with the SSPX will need to be handled separately because their situations are more complicated.
 
Pretty sure it works like this, either:
  1. Religious affiliated with the SSPX will need to go back to their Order.
OR
  1. Get dispensed from their vows and hope they can get incarnadined in such a way they can be affiliated with the SSPX.
OR
  1. They might try to make a third group for themselves and receive permission to do so.
 
Lujack said:
I suppose, and Br. JR would know more than I do, that the Pope would certainly intend to do so, but that each group of religious affiliated with the SSPX will need to be handled separately because their situations are more complicated.
Click to expand...
Melchior said:
Pretty sure it works like this, either:
  1. Religious affiliated with the SSPX will need to go back to their Order.
OR
  1. Get dispensed from their vows and hope they can get incarnadined in such a way they can be affiliated with the SSPX.
OR
  1. They might try to make a third group for themselves and receive permission to do so.
Click to expand...
We saw what happened with the Transalpine Redemptorists. They were affiliated with the SSPX in a rather loose way, but affiliated nonetheless.

The Church demanded that they return to the Redemptorist Congregation. The Redeptorist Superior General would not receive them unless they vowed obedience to him and to the constitutions of the congregation as they are. The Redemptorists were not going to amend their constitutions to accommodate to them. That would have been grossly illegal. A constitution is a legal document voted on by the members of the institute and approved by the Holy See. You can’t just add and delete just to bring someone in.

When they said that they could not accept the constitution and would not vow obedience to the Superior General, not because they didn’t like him, but because obedience to him means obedience to the Redemptorist laws . . . the other option was to ask to be erected as a new religious institute. That’s when they had to give up the name Redemptorist and modify their habit. They presented their constitution for the Sacred Congregation for Religious to approve. It was approved within a few months. They simply had to renew their vows to the new constitution under the name Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer. Then they had to wait for permission to accept new members and to present men for ordination. That took about a year. This would be the process that these religious will have to follow.

There is a glitch here. If I’m not mistaken, none of the Transalpine Redemptorists had been Redemptorists. They had never been dismissed from the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. Some of these other religious are Carmelites and Franciscans who walked and subsequently have been dismissed. In each institute there are rules for receiving someone who is dismissed. In the Franciscan family, there is no possibility for reconciliation if you’re dismissed. Francis wrote it very clearly in the rule that a dismissed friar is a dead friar. He is not to be received back. This is the case of Br. Elias, the Superior General who was excommunicated. After he recanted, he was received into the Church. The Holy Father restored his priestly faculties, but he could not restore him to the vowed life. Elias lived the rest of his like as a secular priest doing penance. There was no way get him back into the order without overruling Francis, something that no pope has ever done.

There are three law givers that the Church has never overruled or attempted to amend their laws: Benedict, Francis and Bruno. Their statutes are considered to be of Divine Inspiration and can only be touched by a pope. But no pope has ever done it. This would be a first, if the pope did it. It would be kind of ironic to overrule an 800 year tradition of the Franciscan Order for the benefit of Traditionalists. Go figure.

However, I can’t think of any good reason that they could not ask to come home as a new institute. There are many options: a congregation, a secular institute, a society of apostolic life with secular and religious members or a public association of the faithful. Today, there are more options than ever before. You should be able to find a niche.

The other option is become secularized and join the SSPX. As I said above, I can only speak for the Franciscans. I know that there are Carmelites and Benedictines involved as well, but I don’t know what their statutes say. I will not attempt to guess.

In the Franciscan tradition, only the Major Superior can accept novices and only the major superior can erect a novitiate. This raises questions about the validity of their vows. The major superior did not accept their novices nor erect their novitiate. It was done by a Capuchin who walked without permission. I have no idea how Canon Law looks at these vows. I guess they can be looked at as private vows. You don’t need a novitiate to make private vows. The Daughters of Charity don’t make a novitiate. But they don’t make public vows either. They make private vows. I’m really out of my league here. I’m not a Canon Lawyer. As a superior, I would hand this over to a Canon Lawyer and shout, “HELP!!!”. :crying:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
So in the Franciscan Rule a dismissed Friar is a dead Friar, is it like that with some of the other Rules (namely the Rule of Augustine)?

I’m assuming some Orders have restrictions in place within their constitutions & statutes, but as we all know The Rule > Statutes.
 
Melchior said:
So in the Franciscan Rule a dismissed Friar is a dead Friar, is it like that with some of the other Rules (namely the Rule of Augustine)?

I’m assuming some Orders have restrictions in place within their constitutions & statutes, but as we all know The Rule > Statutes.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what the Rule of St. Augustine says on this subject. I’ve only read parts of it.

In Francis’ rule and admonitions, there are many opportunities given for the person to submit to authority before the drastic step of dismissal is taken. Francis builds in layers of things that should be tried to save a vocation. But he’s also very practical. At some point, you have to stop and sever the ties. At that point, the community is no longer responsible for you and you’re no longer accountable to the community.

It must be understood that this is not a unilateral decision. The Major Superior must consult his council. He then must present his case to the Holy See. It is the Holy See that does the actual dismissing. A lot of thought and dialogue goes into this very serious step. This is not taken lightly. Someone’s soul is at stake here.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
JReducation said:
We saw what happened with the Transalpine Redemptorists. They were affiliated with the SSPX in a rather loose way, but affiliated nonetheless.

The Church demanded that they return to the Redemptorist Congregation. The Redeptorist Superior General would not receive them unless they vowed obedience to him and to the constitutions of the congregation as they are. The Redemptorists were not going to amend their constitutions to accommodate to them. That would have been grossly illegal. A constitution is a legal document voted on by the members of the institute and approved by the Holy See. You can’t just add and delete just to bring someone in.

When they said that they could not accept the constitution and would not vow obedience to the Superior General, not because they didn’t like him, but because obedience to him means obedience to the Redemptorist laws . . . the other option was to ask to be erected as a new religious institute. That’s when they had to give up the name Redemptorist and modify their habit. They presented their constitution for the Sacred Congregation for Religious to approve. It was approved within a few months. They simply had to renew their vows to the new constitution under the name Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer. Then they had to wait for permission to accept new members and to present men for ordination. That took about a year. This would be the process that these religious will have to follow.

There is a glitch here. If I’m not mistaken, none of the Transalpine Redemptorists had been Redemptorists. They had never been dismissed from the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. Some of these other religious are Carmelites and Franciscans who walked and subsequently have been dismissed. In each institute there are rules for receiving someone who is dismissed. In the Franciscan family, there is no possibility for reconciliation if you’re dismissed. Francis wrote it very clearly in the rule that a dismissed friar is a dead friar. He is not to be received back. This is the case of Br. Elias, the Superior General who was excommunicated. After he recanted, he was received into the Church. The Holy Father restored his priestly faculties, but he could not restore him to the vowed life. Elias lived the rest of his like as a secular priest doing penance. There was no way get him back into the order without overruling Francis, something that no pope has ever done.

There are three law givers that the Church has never overruled or attempted to amend their laws: Benedict, Francis and Bruno. Their statutes are considered to be of Divine Inspiration and can only be touched by a pope. But no pope has ever done it. This would be a first, if the pope did it. It would be kind of ironic to overrule an 800 year tradition of the Franciscan Order for the benefit of Traditionalists. Go figure.

However, I can’t think of any good reason that they could not ask to come home as a new institute. There are many options: a congregation, a secular institute, a society of apostolic life with secular and religious members or a public association of the faithful. Today, there are more options than ever before. You should be able to find a niche.

The other option is become secularized and join the SSPX. As I said above, I can only speak for the Franciscans. I know that there are Carmelites and Benedictines involved as well, but I don’t know what their statutes say. I will not attempt to guess.

In the Franciscan tradition, only the Major Superior can accept novices and only the major superior can erect a novitiate. This raises questions about the validity of their vows. The major superior did not accept their novices nor erect their novitiate. It was done by a Capuchin who walked without permission. I have no idea how Canon Law looks at these vows. I guess they can be looked at as private vows. You don’t need a novitiate to make private vows. The Daughters of Charity don’t make a novitiate. But they don’t make public vows either. They make private vows. I’m really out of my league here. I’m not a Canon Lawyer.
Click to expand...
As I stated earlier in the thread, my understanding is that Bp Fellay was very concerned about the religious that have been associated with the SSPX and what their status would be. I think we should all understand that this is not something that everyone is just now deciding how to handle as a regularization may be at hand. Concurrent with the doctrinal talks, the canonical situation has also been studied and crafted. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, this was fairly settled before the doctrinal talks were underway.

The result, as I’ve been led to understand, is that the Vatican has approved, at least in concept, how the Benedictines, etc, can remain Benedictines, etc and still be covered under the new canonical structure. As the prelature was created for Opus Dei, my guess is that a NEW form of the prelature will be constructed to somehow accommodate SSPX priests and other priests and religious within the same construct and it will not be the same as Opus Dei.

I am certain as certain can be without really knowing the answer that the procedure will not be that Benedictines, Franciscans, Carmelites, Capuchins, and Salesians (I think thats all of the orders associated with the SSPX) will have to go back and apply for readmission to their orders if they originally left. I would wager that the Pope has come up with a very simple and most likely elegant way to allow the reintegration. Perhaps there is a way to erect a Franciscans of St Pius X, I don’t know. But I do know that Bp Fellay believes that there is a satisfactory proposal on the table, which I’m sure he has discussed with Fr. Cyprian in Silver City and all of the other affected religious.

As I said, I don’t believe we can look to precedent to anticipate what the Pope has in store here.
 
giuseppeTO said:
As I stated earlier in the thread, my understanding is that Bp Fellay was very concerned about the religious that have been associated with the SSPX and what their status would be. I think we should all understand that this is not something that everyone is just now deciding how to handle as a regularization may be at hand. Concurrent with the doctrinal talks, the canonical situation has also been studied and crafted. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, this was fairly settled before the doctrinal talks were underway.

The result, as I’ve been led to understand, is that the Vatican has approved, at least in concept, how the Benedictines, etc, can remain Benedictines, etc and still be covered under the new canonical structure. As the prelature was created for Opus Dei, my guess is that a NEW form of the prelature will be constructed to somehow accommodate SSPX priests and other priests and religious within the same construct and it will not be the same as Opus Dei.

I am certain as certain can be without really knowing the answer that the procedure will not be that Benedictines, Franciscans, Carmelites, Capuchins, and Salesians (I think thats all of the orders associated with the SSPX) will have to go back and apply for readmission to their orders if they originally left. I would wager that the Pope has come up with a very simple and most likely elegant way to allow the reintegration. Perhaps there is a way to erect a Franciscans of St Pius X, I don’t know. But I do know that Bp Fellay believes that there is a satisfactory proposal on the table, which I’m sure he has discussed with Fr. Cyprian in Silver City and all of the other affected religious.

As I said, I don’t believe we can look to precedent to anticipate what the Pope has in store here.
Click to expand...
The bold is mine.

That would be a good example of a group coming back as a different community. They would still be Franciscans, but no longer Capuchin. They would be a new Franciscan community.

With the Benedictines, things are much easier. The Benedictines do not belong to an orer per se. They all follow the Rule of St. Benedict, but he house is autonomous. It’s not as if they have to come back and merge into a larger community as would other religious. Benedictines remain attached to the house where they make profession.

Salesians, Franciscans, Carmelites, etc have no stability. You have to be available to move to any house and merge into the culture of the house. The houses do not accommodate for the new comer. That would be the problem of reintegrating one of these religious into the larger community. They remain Traditionalists, even if they are in full communion with the Church. They may not be in full communion with their respective community. That would trigger the separation into distinct institutes with different names and different constitutions, as long as they agree to comply with the rules and regulations imposed by the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, which are not out of the ordinary.

The most difficult expectation for a Traditionalist may be the fact that the Sacred Congregation does not allow religious communities to dissent. Individuals are treated differently.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
giuseppeTO said:
As I stated earlier in the thread, my understanding is that Bp Fellay was very concerned about the religious that have been associated with the SSPX and what their status would be. I think we should all understand that this is not something that everyone is just now deciding how to handle as a regularization may be at hand. Concurrent with the doctrinal talks, the canonical situation has also been studied and crafted. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, this was fairly settled before the doctrinal talks were underway.

The result, as I’ve been led to understand, is that the Vatican has approved, at least in concept, how the Benedictines, etc, can remain Benedictines, etc and still be covered under the new canonical structure. As the prelature was created for Opus Dei, my guess is that a NEW form of the prelature will be constructed to somehow accommodate SSPX priests and other priests and religious within the same construct and it will not be the same as Opus Dei.

I am certain as certain can be without really knowing the answer that the procedure will not be that Benedictines, Franciscans, Carmelites, Capuchins, and Salesians (I think thats all of the orders associated with the SSPX) will have to go back and apply for readmission to their orders if they originally left. I would wager that the Pope has come up with a very simple and most likely elegant way to allow the reintegration. Perhaps there is a way to erect a Franciscans of St Pius X, I don’t know. But I do know that Bp Fellay believes that there is a satisfactory proposal on the table, which I’m sure he has discussed with Fr. Cyprian in Silver City and all of the other affected religious.

As I said, I don’t believe we can look to precedent to anticipate what the Pope has in store here.
Click to expand...
This makes good sense to me. I’m fairly certain that Bishop Fellay would not hang the religious associated with the SSPX out to dry, so to speak. The infusion of traditional monasticism would be a great boon to the religious orders. I live close to the SSPX Benedictine monastery in Silver City and have stayed there a few times – it is a beautiful and sacred place with many devout men trying to live the Rule. I have always come away quite spiritually nourished (and physically, too… those brothers sure can cook!).

Interestingly enough, a year or so ago the Abbot and Prior of the Christ in the Desert Benedictine monastery in northern New Mexico spent a week at Our Lady of Guadalupe in order to see how traditional monastics live. It was good to see how a regularized Abbot still felt the fraternal bonds with irregular brothers and wanted to learn and share with them.
  • PAX
 
giuseppeTO said:
As I stated earlier in the thread, my understanding is that Bp Fellay was very concerned about the religious that have been associated with the SSPX and what their status would be. I think we should all understand that this is not something that everyone is just now deciding how to handle as a regularization may be at hand. Concurrent with the doctrinal talks, the canonical situation has also been studied and crafted. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, this was fairly settled before the doctrinal talks were underway.

The result, as I’ve been led to understand, is that the Vatican has approved, at least in concept, how the Benedictines, etc, can remain Benedictines, etc and still be covered under the new canonical structure. As the prelature was created for Opus Dei, my guess is that a NEW form of the prelature will be constructed to somehow accommodate SSPX priests and other priests and religious within the same construct and it will not be the same as Opus Dei.

I am certain as certain can be without really knowing the answer that the procedure will not be that Benedictines, Franciscans, Carmelites, Capuchins, and Salesians (I think thats all of the orders associated with the SSPX) will have to go back and apply for readmission to their orders if they originally left. I would wager that the Pope has come up with a very simple and most likely elegant way to allow the reintegration. Perhaps there is a way to erect a Franciscans of St Pius X, I don’t know. But I do know that Bp Fellay believes that there is a satisfactory proposal on the table, which I’m sure he has discussed with Fr. Cyprian in Silver City and all of the other affected religious.

As I said, I don’t believe we can look to precedent to anticipate what the Pope has in store here.
Click to expand...
Interesting post. The group in Silver City is the one I was referring to earlier in the thread.

Thanks!
 
EcceAgnusDei said:
Interestingly enough, a year or so ago the Abbot and Prior of the Christ in the Desert Benedictine monastery in northern New Mexico spent a week at Our Lady of Guadalupe in order to see how traditional monastics live. It was good to see how a regularized Abbot still felt the fraternal bonds with irregular brothers and wanted to learn and share with them.
Click to expand...
I love ecumenism! 😉
 
EcceAgnusDei said:
Interestingly enough, a year or so ago the Abbot and Prior of the Christ in the Desert Benedictine monastery in northern New Mexico spent a week at Our Lady of Guadalupe in order to see how traditional monastics live. It was good to see how a regularized Abbot still felt the fraternal bonds with irregular brothers and wanted to learn and share with them.
Click to expand...
Quite similar to Catholics also being able to learn a thing or two from our Orthodox and Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ.
 
Big_Feet said:
Quite similar to Catholics also being able to learn a thing or two from our Orthodox and Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ.
Click to expand...
This is classic, coming after giuseppeTO’s post. I sure did giggle 😉
  • PAX
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top