Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
It’s the CDWDS that is in charge of this, led by Cardinal Canizares, not the CDF.
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
OTOH, a personal prelature can mean no financial support from the diocese, which gives the FSSPX a certain amount of “independence,” for the lack of a better word. So if someone wants to build them a chapel or do repairs on their existing ones, the diocese would have little say in the matter. But who knows?
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Lu,
Neither do I but FWIW, my understanding is that the local ordinary will be consulted but cannot forbid the establishment of a new chapel in this new arrangement. I believe that was one of the earliest points that was discussed.
Also, FWIW, I also understand that the SSPX intends to build up the missions it already has for a time and increase the availability of Masses where there may now only be one weekly Mass. So opening new chapels in new diocese will probably not be an issue in the near future.
P
pnewton
Guest
Thank you for finding that for me. Even with a personal prelature, we still have canon law. However, like you said, unless the Pope changes the rules. At this time, then need the approval of the bishop. However, the Pope is the boss and can change this if he deems it pastorally prudent. Speculation now is premature, except as a warning to wait and not run off to the SSPX for a valid confession until, and unless, all is clear.
I would think that there would be diocese that would welcome them warmly and those that will give them the cold shoulder. The best cure for this will not be mandates, but time.
P
pnewton
Guest
Just as their may be pastoral reason for granting the SSPX some leeway without the permission of the bishop, there is also a pastoral reason for requiring that they work with permission of the bishop. This puts some of the burden on the priests themselves not to be offensive and obnoxious, but rather to treat the bishop with the respect due his office. There is nothing wrong with eating crow and submitting to another. It is an effective salve to the sin of pride. I will not judge any SSPX priest (or any bishop) on this, for we almost kill our pride or it will kill us.
J
jwinch2
Guest
I think this is an important statement.
Over time, if the SSPX can show that they are willing to work with and show the proper respect to the local Bishops, not cause any problems, etc. more and more Bishops will be willing to welcome them. As you noted, some will be willing to do so sooner than others. But, if they develop a good track record of cooperation, things will go much smoother.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
From a practical perspective, the SSPX in the United States does not have the capacity at this time to significantly expand into diocese where they do not currently have a chapel or priory. The seminary is full, which is a good thing. It will be interesting to see if there is a spike in applications after the announcement of a formal regularization. So I personally do not see an issue with expansion into new diocese in the near future. There should be plenty of time after a regularization for the system to come to equilibrium, if you take my meaning.
There are plenty of chapels with Mass only 3 out of 4 weeks per month or with only a Mass on Sunday only. The US District Superior (Fr. Rostand) expects to build up those chapels to a more robust schedule of Masses, devotions, Benedictions, Confessions, etc as new seminarians are ordained. Plans are also underway to build a new bigger seminary in Virginia that should become operational in 2015 and be able to handle more than the 100 seminarians currently at Winona.
This should work to the advantage of the diocese which may not currently have a Mass celebrated in the EF. The ordinary, if requested by the faithful, can fulfill that need with his own priests or the FSSP. Or, if the Bishop develops a relationship with the SSPX, perhaps he would invite the SSPX. But the Bishop would also know that if he cannot fulfill the request due to money or priest availability, that the SSPX is another alternative which would not draw on either diocesan funding or man-power.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
When our diocese was assigned a new bishop, I personally sent him a letter welcoming him to the diocese. I knew him years ago when he was a deacon and I was a young altar server. He replied back with a very kind and gracious letter. I also know that our priests usually make a request for ordinary jurisdiction before performing a wedding. And finally, a couple of months ago, when the bishop sent a letter to all diocesan parishes concerning the Obama health care requirements for providing contraception, our pastor was also sent a copy.
These are just a few small examples of cordiality and respect that we rarely hear about due to the sometimes overwhelming and sensational stories to the contrary. But perhaps the transition will be easier than we can imagine sitting here today?
We can certainly pray for it and it appears that Our Lord is actually listening to at least some of our prayers. :yup:
M
Melchior_1
Guest
This is very astute, and is a good argument for the Prelature method,
I
iloveangels
Guest
I agree. The times we live in are very much like those St. Francis lived in, and one of the key reasons the Franciscans still exist and the Humiliati don’t is that St. Francis got the crucial piece about faithfulness and respect for the Church, the pope and the clergy right. It’s amazing the way people talk now about what they want, that’s all. Just what they want.I think St. Francis would roll over in his grave if he read how they speak about the pope on this blog. If there is one thing that rings very true of St. Francis is that he renewed the Church in communion with her governance. He was not blind to the human weaknesses in the Church, but we never see or hear him speak of the clergy and hierarchy’s weaknesses. On the contrary, what we see is Francis calling all people to conversion to the Gospel. His call was so passionate and sincere, that even clergy and prelates were pulled into the spirit of conversion. One of the first was Cardinal Hugolino who became Pope Gregory IX
…clip…
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
I
iloveangels
Guest
I think this is very, very important. And I think that the thoughfulness and manners that GuiseppeTO talks about in the last couple of posts are very important too. This is do-able, but it’s just going to require that people from both viewpoints act like Christian adults most of the time for a while. We can do that.
M
mattkubes
Guest
I have a question about this canon - it says that prelatures need permission from the local bishop “in whose particular churches the prelature itself exercises…”. To me this sounds as though they need permission to operate in diocesan buildings, but where does it refer to the need for permission just to operate in the territory? Or does “particular churches” have something to do with territory as well?
B
Big_Feet
Guest
“particular church” is another way to reffer to the diocese.
The Bishop is the head of his particular Church (diocese), which must be in union with the Church of Rome.
M
mattkubes
Guest
Thanks. That makes more sense now.
J
JReducation
Guest
There are three or four canons under Personal Prelature and they keep making reference to statutes. My guess is that they left this deliberately flexible. It will be the statutes that define the parameters for each prelature.
The way that I’m interpreting this final canon is that the statutes are going to outline the relationship between the prelature and the local bishop. But it does include that one little phrase about his prior consent to do ministry in his church.
Since the pope makes the law, the pope can also modify the law. He can define what it is that you need consent for.
We just have to wait. The pope has not signed the Preamble yet, as far as I know.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
L
Like
Guest
What do you make of this, SSPX news lettersspx.org/theological_commission/is_recognizing_sspx_questioning_the_council_4-19-2012.htm
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Hmm…
M
Megan7
Guest
M
Moore11
Guest
Aside from the 95 percent comment it could have been written by any orthodox Catholic. However, it is bad timing to even bring this up now when there is nothing being announced and tensions are fragile. It is odd.
I wonder if they changed 5 percent of the response…
Either way if would be good if parties involved would just hush up until this is ironed out.
W
wasserfall
Guest
I think you might be missing the point. Most of the linked article was just quotations from another article, with a non-SSPX author.
The main points of that quoted article seemed to be:
- The SSPX accepts more of Vatican II than many “liberal” Catholics, who are not considered “out of communion” or “schismatic”
- Where the SSPX rejects something from Vatican II, they do so only because it appears to contradict some earlier authoritative doctrine.
- If the SSPX is wrong in rejecting some part of Vatican II, then it should be possible to explain why the SSPX is wrong…
3a) … either by showing why the SSPX understanding of the earlier authoritative doctrine does not correspond to the meaning of the doctrine as intended at the time it was given.
3b) … or by showing why the earlier doctrine does not possess the authority that the SSPX accords to it. - If either 3a or 3b are not possible, then it must be permissable to admit that the SSPX may be correct.
- Status