SSPX

[JReducation]

I find it troubling that he wrote this. Probably because I think it continues to lend itself to a spirit of division despite the recent developments.

I will admit, just as Timothy H. did earlier, that my first instict is to demand apology and try to determine which side “won.” I couldn’t help but have an almost smug first reaction. How horrible is this! I am ashamed at myself and grateful that even a sinner like me can be a part of the wonderful body of Christ.

Once I passed over this initial emotion I couldn’t help but realize that this is an awesome step and a wonderful answer to prayer. It amazes me that even during a time when we should be rejoicing some still can’t bring themselves to do it. I will never understand this reaction, despite the fact that I have to include myself in the category, but it definitely reminds me that these things can only happen through the power of the Holy Spirit. Praise God!

When Peter and Paul debated on circumcision, Luke didn’t include a wedge in his reporting. he wrote about it just as it happened. There is no hint in Acts of any smugness on the part of the non-Jewish Christians or any rebellion from the Jewish Christians. It was simply a fact. Paul made his case before Peter. Peter as pope gave it his blessing and the Church moved on.

We need to go back and reread the story of the Council of Jerusalem, observing the humility and charity of both sides.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Boulder257]

When Peter and Paul debated on circumcision, Luke didn’t include a wedge in his reporting. he wrote about it just as it happened. There is no hint in Acts of any smugness on the part of the non-Jewish Christians or any rebellion from the Jewish Christians. It was simply a fact. Paul made his case before Peter. Peter as pope gave it his blessing and the Church moved on.

We need to go back and reread the story of the Council of Jerusalem, observing the humility and charity of both sides.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Well said.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

From Brother JR:

In any case, a few years ago, Pope Benedict lifted the excommunication of the four living bishops, but not the founder, Archbishop Lefebvre. I believe that this is going to be a sticky issue that will have to handled with great diplomacy. The SSPX considers the Archbishop a saint and the Vatican sees him as a man who died outside the Church. I have no idea how they’re going to handle that one.

I’m certainly not very knowledgeable in canon law, but someone pointed out to me once before that the document that lifts the excommunications of the 4 living Bishops also declares the document that confirmed their excommunications in the first place “deprived of any juridical effect.” Here’s the quote:

Based in the faculty expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, in virtue of the present Decree, I remit to Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure of latae sententiae excommunication declared by this Congregation on July 1, 1988, while I declare deprived of any juridical effect, from the present date, the Decree emanated at that date.

Now, it is that document that also excommunicated Bishop Lefebvre. If it is void of juridical effect, could one argue that his excommunication has also been voided? Perhaps this was a subtle way of doing so without furthering upsetting groups in the Church who are adamantly opposed to everything the Archbishop did.

• PAX

 

[YoungTradCath]

From the French website of the SSPX:

La presse annonce que Mgr Bernard Fellay a adressé une « réponse positive » à la Congrégation pour la Doctrine de la Foi, et qu’en conséquence la question doctrinale est désormais résolue entre le Saint-Siège et la Fraternité Saint-Pie X.

La réalité est autre.

Dans un courrier du 17 avril 2012, le Supérieur général de la Fraternité Saint-Pie X a répondu à la demande d’éclaircissement que lui avait faite, le 16 mars, le cardinal William Levada, au sujet du Préambule doctrinal remis le 14 septembre 2011.

Comme l’indique le communiqué de presse [1] de la Congrégation pour la Doctrine de la Foi, daté de ce jour, le texte de cette réponse « sera examiné par le Dicastère et soumis ensuite au jugement du Saint-Père ».

Il s’agit donc d’une étape et non d’une conclusion.

Menzingen, le 18 avril 2012

Source : Maison Générale/Dici

Source: laportelatine.org/international/maison/communiques/fellay_rome_120418/fellay_rome_120418.php

Google translation:

The press announced that Bishop Bernard Fellay sent a “positive response” to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and therefore the doctrinal issue is now resolved between the Holy See and the Fraternity of St. Pius X.

The reality is otherwise.

In a letter dated April 17, 2012, the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X replied to the request for clarification made to him, March 16, Cardinal William Levada, about the doctrinal Preamble delivered September 14, 2011 .

As stated in the press release [1] of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dated as of today, the text of that response “will be considered by the Congregation and subsequently submitted to the judgment of the Holy Father.”

It is therefore a step, not a conclusion.

Menzingen, April 18, 2012

Source: General House / Dici

The bureaucracy begins! Of course, the last line of the message, “It is therefore a step, not a conclusion,” is a decidedly highly positive sentiment from the Society’s General House itself, albeit in thinly veiled ambivalent language.

 

[FrMM]

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…

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.

To JReducation

I would like to make known to you that what you have written about our community, which I quote above, is simply not true. Never mind but for the record and in justice to the truth about the matters you have asserted, let me note in particular:

1. The Church never demanded that we return to the Redemptorist Congregation. This was never asked of us nor even hinted at in any form.

2.The Redemptorist Superior General at the time never asked us to vow obedience to him nor accept their Constitutions; again, not in any way at all. It simply never happened.

1. We never presented our Constitutions to the Sacred Congregation of Religious for approval nor did they approve the document in a few months.
2. We did not have to wait for permission to receive new members; this was never communicated to us, in fact we were encouraged to continue as we had done before our reconciliation of 18 June 2008.
3. We have not, as it turns out, had to renounce the name Redemptorist; we thought it was an obligation, and if it was necessary we would have obeyed. Still, we are not the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, (C.SS.R.), and make no claim to being that body, calling ourselves the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, (F.SS.R.) or popularly known as the “Transalpine Redemptorists.”
4. We did modify our habit.

It is not very difficult to find us, we have a blog, a web page, a “contact us” button, and we are generally open to explain many things.

I appreciate your desire to clarify matters for others. At times you must feel to be quite ‘on the spot’ but I wish that you would have asked us, since that would have been helpful.

I wish you the very best and I hope your apostolate is fruitful. I did look to find a way of writing to you but, unable to find out how to do it I found the easiest way was simply to join your site.

I do not want this clarification to distract you or others from the very good news of the moment which is the reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X.

With every blessing
Fr. Michael Mary, F.SS.R.

 

[BobCatholic]

Now, it is that document that also excommunicated Bishop Lefebvre. If it is void of juridical effect, could one argue that his excommunication has also been voided? Perhaps this was a subtle way of doing so without furthering upsetting groups in the Church who are adamantly opposed to everything the Archbishop did.

I see it like this.

If someone is convicted of a crime but the sentence is later suspended or reduced to time served by the judge, did the conviction never take place? And will that someone, since they’re free from jail, have to put on their job applications that they were convicted? I’d say yes.

They were excommunicated. They still are. But the sentence for excommunication is suspended, or their sentence was changed to time served. That’s not the same as a pardon or a lifting of the excommunication.

I see it as a way for the Pope to walk down the middle of the street It was not the full weight of excommunications and it is not a pardon.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I see it like this.

If someone is convicted of a crime but the sentence is later suspended or reduced to time served by the judge, did the conviction never take place? And will that someone, since they’re free from jail, have to put on their job applications that they were convicted? I’d say yes.

They were excommunicated. They still are. But the sentence for excommunication is suspended, or their sentence was changed to time served. That’s not the same as a pardon or a lifting of the excommunication.

I see it as a way for the Pope to walk down the middle of the street It was not the full weight of excommunications and it is not a pardon.

They are not still excommunicated.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

To JReducation

I would like to make known to you that what you have written about our community, which I quote above, is simply not true. Never mind but for the record and in justice to the truth about the matters you have asserted, let me note in particular:

1. The Church never demanded that we return to the Redemptorist Congregation. This was never asked of us nor even hinted at in any form.

2.The Redemptorist Superior General at the time never asked us to vow obedience to him nor accept their Constitutions; again, not in any way at all. It simply never happened.

1. We never presented our Constitutions to the Sacred Congregation of Religious for approval nor did they approve the document in a few months.
2. We did not have to wait for permission to receive new members; this was never communicated to us, in fact we were encouraged to continue as we had done before our reconciliation of 18 June 2008.
3. We have not, as it turns out, had to renounce the name Redemptorist; we thought it was an obligation, and if it was necessary we would have obeyed. Still, we are not the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, (C.SS.R.), and make no claim to being that body, calling ourselves the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, (F.SS.R.) or popularly known as the “Transalpine Redemptorists.”
4. We did modify our habit.

It is not very difficult to find us, we have a blog, a web page, a “contact us” button, and we are generally open to explain many things.

I appreciate your desire to clarify matters for others. At times you must feel to be quite ‘on the spot’ but I wish that you would have asked us, since that would have been helpful.

I wish you the very best and I hope your apostolate is fruitful. I did look to find a way of writing to you but, unable to find out how to do it I found the easiest way was simply to join your site.

I do not want this clarification to distract you or others from the very good news of the moment which is the reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X.

With every blessing
Fr. Michael Mary, F.SS.R.

Interesting. Thank you for the clarification. May God bless you and your community.

• PAX

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Can someone (besides the OP, who has kindly already responded to a PM) please address how a reunion ( praying ) will effect the TOSF?

Thanks

 

[NorthTexan88]

I was wondering, how large is the SSPX?
I can’t seem to find out what there membership is, laity wise. Does anyone know?

On a selfish note, there is an SSPX parish less than 10 miles away from me, so I’ve been praying for reunion!!!

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I see it like this.

If someone is convicted of a crime but the sentence is later suspended or reduced to time served by the judge, did the conviction never take place? And will that someone, since they’re free from jail, have to put on their job applications that they were convicted? I’d say yes.

They were excommunicated. They still are. But the sentence for excommunication is suspended, or their sentence was changed to time served. That’s not the same as a pardon or a lifting of the excommunication.

The excommunications were not suspended or reduced to time served. The wording is very clear. The censure was remitted. That is similar to a pardon. And you say that they are still excommunicated. That is not true. They are not excommunicated in any way, shape, or form.

• PAX

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I was wondering, how large is the SSPX?
I can’t seem to find out what there membership is, laity wise. Does anyone know?

On a selfish note, there is an SSPX parish less than 10 miles away from me, so I’ve been praying for reunion!!!

Technically, there are no lay members of the SSPX. It is a society of priests.

As to the numbers of laity who attend SSPX masses, I do not know.

• PAX

 

[Corki]

The excommunications were not suspended or reduced to time served. The wording is very clear. The censure was remitted. That is similar to a pardon. And you say that they are still excommunicated. That is not true. They are not excommunicated in any way, shape, or form.

• PAX

Exactly. Excommunication isn’t something historical; something that goes “on your record”. It is a state of being. And it’s binary. You either are or aren’t excommunicated at any point in time. The SSPX Bishops are not excommunicated.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Can someone (besides the OP, who has kindly already responded to a PM) please address how a reunion ( praying ) will effect the TOSF?

Thanks

You can attend their Masses right now and it isn’t a sin. You could attend them 5 years ago and it wouldn’t have been a sin, presuming that you did so out of want to attend the EF.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Technically, there are no lay members of the SSPX. It is a society of priests.

As to the numbers of laity who attend SSPX masses, I do not know.

• PAX

I keep hearing this claim yet the SSPX lists brothers and sisters that they say are part of the SSPX as well as a third order.

 

[Moore11]

It is my understanding that the excommunication dies when the person dies. There is nothing to lift. It is what it is. Once cannot be excommunicated after death. They either will be in heaven or not. It was not lifted for the departed Archbishop because there is nothing to lift. He died in excommunication. That excommunication died with him.

 

[ProVobis]

Hello! I asked this questions before threads were merged, and I don’t know if there was a reply or not…
IF a reconciliation of SSPX and Rome is announced today, may I attend an SSPX chapel this coming Sunday, or would I need to wait months or years for the situation to be fully ironed out?

That shouldn’t be a problem. However, for the record the priests have been in suspension since 1975 (13 yrs before the excommunication of the bishops) and I haven’t read anywhere on how this will be resolved. Will it be one-by-one or a general suspension lifting, for example? This will be talked about for some time, I suspect.

 

[Corki]

I keep hearing this claim yet the SSPX lists brothers and sisters that they say are part of the SSPX as well as a third order.

I have heard this as well but when I looked it up, it seems that it is much broader than just priests. Back when they were still in the fold, they were approved as a Society of Apostolic Life, which would include lay men and women as well as priests.

That being said, I don’t think the Church recognizes a way that lay persons become “members”. Priests become SSPX “members” when they either a) are ordained by a SSPX Bishop and make their promises to him or b) break their association with their Ordinary and make new promises to a SSPX Bishop. A Catholic lay person who attends Mass at a SSPX chapel would still be considered a “member” of the parish in which he/she physically resides.

 

[JReducation]

From Brother JR:

I’m certainly not very knowledgeable in canon law, but someone pointed out to me once before that the document that lifts the excommunications of the 4 living Bishops also declares the document that confirmed their excommunications in the first place “deprived of any juridical effect.” Here’s the quote:

Now, it is that document that also excommunicated Bishop Lefebvre. If it is void of juridical effect, could one argue that his excommunication has also been voided? Perhaps this was a subtle way of doing so without furthering upsetting groups in the Church who are adamantly opposed to everything the Archbishop did.

• PAX

If I’m understanding the language correctly, there are two parts here that call attention to themselves. the one part is where it mentions the specific names. The other part is where it says from this day. I does not give the impression that it’s retroactive.

I’m not a canon lawyer either. We’re in the same boat.

To JReducation

I would like to make known to you that what you have written about our community, which I quote above, is simply not true. Never mind but for the record and in justice to the truth about the matters you have asserted, let me note in particular:

1. The Church never demanded that we return to the Redemptorist Congregation. This was never asked of us nor even hinted at in any form.

2.The Redemptorist Superior General at the time never asked us to vow obedience to him nor accept their Constitutions; again, not in any way at all. It simply never happened.

1. We never presented our Constitutions to the Sacred Congregation of Religious for approval nor did they approve the document in a few months.
2. We did not have to wait for permission to receive new members; this was never communicated to us, in fact we were encouraged to continue as we had done before our reconciliation of 18 June 2008.
3. We have not, as it turns out, had to renounce the name Redemptorist; we thought it was an obligation, and if it was necessary we would have obeyed. Still, we are not the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, (C.SS.R.), and make no claim to being that body, calling ourselves the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, (F.SS.R.) or popularly known as the “Transalpine Redemptorists.”
4. We did modify our habit.

It is not very difficult to find us, we have a blog, a web page, a “contact us” button, and we are generally open to explain many things.

I appreciate your desire to clarify matters for others. At times you must feel to be quite ‘on the spot’ but I wish that you would have asked us, since that would have been helpful.

I wish you the very best and I hope your apostolate is fruitful. I did look to find a way of writing to you but, unable to find out how to do it I found the easiest way was simply to join your site.

I do not want this clarification to distract you or others from the very good news of the moment which is the reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X.

With every blessing
Fr. Michael Mary, F.SS.R.

Father:

I thank you for the clarification and I sincerely apologize for repeating something that I had read elsewhere, which is obviously inaccurate.

I will repeat my admiration for your community and my continued prayers for its growth and ministry.

To other posters, I regret that I repeated information that was incorrect.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[John_of_Patmos]

Hello! I asked this questions before threads were merged, and I don’t know if there was a reply or not…
IF a reconciliation of SSPX and Rome is announced today, may I attend an SSPX chapel this coming Sunday, or would I need to wait months or years for the situation to be fully ironed out?

I don’t know how this effects the Sunday Obligation, if nothing is concrete yet.
I would wait, honestly.