Talks over with SSPX?

[TrueLight]

An effect, possibly, on those here at CAF but outside of here, how many people have you met who know anything about the SSPX or the struggle of Archbishop Lefebvre?

It’s hard for me to say because I mostly hang out with traditionalists, but there are many blogs which discuss the issue and even the mainstream news organizations discuss the “rebel Catholics”.

It is my understanding that the Holy See is willing to discuss any ambiguities of Vatican II which the SSPX may have but it is NOT an occasion of saying that the Council was wrong or misguided. In this sense, using the word c**larifications is completely one sided in favor of the Church.

Right. All I’m saying is that the conversations are happening. I believe if the SSPX become regularized, their numbers will be added to the number of Ecclesia Dei groups who are having these conversations and saying “Look at this beautiful tradition we have. Let’s not let it die. Look at our traditional devotions. Let’s not let them be forgotten.”

 

[Timothysis]

Right. All I’m saying is that the conversations are happening. I believe if the SSPX become regularized, their numbers will be added to the number of Ecclesia Dei groups who are having these conversations and saying “Look at this beautiful tradition we have. Let’s not let it die. Look at our traditional devotions. Let’s not let them be forgotten.”

It’s possible…I guess we’ll have to wait and see. It would certainly be a nice change.

 

[TimothyH]

This takes us back to my previous example. Two statements can be different and both can be infallible, because they are addressing different circumstances. There are going to be situations in which the first statement is no longer invoked, not because it ceases to be truth, but because the situation has ceased to exist. Should the situation resurface, then the statement is applicable. A new one need not be made.

I think this is an incredibly important lesson for Catholics. It makes perfect sense, now that I have heard it, but if it were not pointed out I would never have know it. It makes sense to me because this is just what some do with the Bible.

For example, the books of Leviticus and Numbers have a strict prohibition against the consumption of blood. Then Jesus says that you must drink his blood, and a significant population of modern Christians do not take Jesus at his word, insisting that Jesus couln’t really be speaking about the literal consumption of blood because the prohibition was “everlasting.” But they don’t realize that the situation on the ground has changed. God became man. The old covenant is becoming obsolete. There is to be a new covenant. Etc.

I’ve begun studying the documents of Vatican II for an adult education program in which I am involved, and this has been a great eye opener for me as to the why and how of Vatican II. It clarifies much. Thank you.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Right. All I’m saying is that the conversations are happening. I believe if the SSPX become regularized, their numbers will be added to the number of Ecclesia Dei groups who are having these conversations and saying “Look at this beautiful tradition we have. Let’s not let it die. Look at our traditional devotions. Let’s not let them be forgotten.”

If that’s all it is, then I’ll have a double portion.

For some however, it is not a conversation about preservation of beautiful traditions, but a mission to return to 1961 emotionally, spiritually and liturgically.

-Tim-

 

[severus68]

I’m not so sure. If what you say is true, then the majority of Protestants should also know about the “same things we do,” yet we don’t call them heretics and the like. Or we shouldn’t anyway. Some of the FSSPX priests are under 40, have only attended FSSPX Masses and catechism classes in their lives and have been taught by traditional Catholic methods. Should they be held to the same standards as all other Catholics?

Protestants do not say they are Catholics. The FSSPX says it is Catholic and to be Catholic in full communion with Rome, the priests should follow what the Church says and they know what the rules are.

 

[TEPO]

SSPX…? Never heard of em’.

 

[severus68]

An effect, possibly, on those here at CAF but outside of here, how many people have you met who know anything about the SSPX or the struggle of Archbishop Lefebvre?

It is my understanding that the Holy See is willing to discuss any ambiguities of Vatican II which the SSPX may have but it is NOT an occasion of saying that the Council was wrong or misguided. In this sense, using the word c**larifications is completely one sided in favor of the Church.

Exactly. I did not even know about the SSPX until I joined CAF and the majority of Catholics are not members of CAF.

 

[Moore11]

What does this even mean? Can you not have an EF because the bishop refuses, or is it that there is not a stable enough group/demand for the bishop to devote the resources necessary for something that may not have enough support? What does "it would shake up our diocese" mean? In my town there is one parish that has and has had a regular EF Mass for the past 20 years. Those who know about it and desire it go and those who don’t know or don’t desire it don’t go. It hasn’t shaken up anything here, anymore than the sspx chapel that was established years ago.

The Church is more than just those Catholics in America. Of the half million priests around the world, 500 is a small fraction.

Once again, as a priestly society you probably wouldn’t even be aware of their presence in your diocese unless they were given a parish. I still don’t understand how such a small group of people who exclusively celebrate a form of the Mass that a very small percentage of Catholics know about or even desire could do so much for the Church.

It should be noted that they consecrate our Lords Body illicitly and in disobedience of the pope and Canon Law. To use your own example, even that original small group of protestant priests were validly celebrating Mass.

Well, you certainly can have the opinion that they are inconsequential. But then why such zeal for the inconsequential? 500 priests? would that we had 500 more priests.

I wont go into detail too much but if you have followed my story. The EF is suppressed here not because of a lack of support but as a wish of the bishop to have uniform parishes. Which is the good Bishop’s right, and he is successful. every one of the 8 Parishes in my area are carbon copies of each other. They are all the same which is why if one does not like the 1960s and 70s style of worship, one is out of luck. Because 20 miles away is a jam packed SSPX chapel that many of us dont go to out of obedience to our Bishop and ultimately our Pope. We have people who want the EF, we have priests that can and do request to say it. We have Mass in basque, Spanish, english, polish, and “teen” but we do not have an EF. Now I may be frustrated with that, but it is not my paygrade to question the Bishop. And though I may not understand or agree with what I think are his reasons, I am called to obedience. I also believe that many people like our Bishop believe that the EF is divisive and well, it kind of is. But then again so are “teen” Masses, and Spanish Masses and just about anything else. Our diocese has a mission “statement” called “All at the table” But it isnt really all of us. Just as the SSPX are called to obedience. Our Bishop has had a press release telling us the SSPX are not Catholic at all. And we should avoid going the chapels of which our area has several.
Yes, the SSPX could do some good here. Too bad they wont.
Sometimes I dont think many people know that there are still some places that are struggling with some issues that the Church is correcting. As with everything where I live it is a trickle down effect and we are still waiting for the trickle.
So for those who go to a reverent OF or have access to an EF good for you. The rest of us are with you in spirit.

Yes, the SSPX is a tool that could help. Around here there are many people hungry for what they are handing out.

I’m curious, if the SSPX 500 are such a drop in the bucket, then why are you giving them so much of your spiritual time?

 

[Melchior_1]

Well, you certainly can have the opinion that they are inconsequential. But then why such zeal for the inconsequential? 500 priests? would that we had 500 more priests.

I wont go into detail too much but if you have followed my story. The EF is suppressed here not because of a lack of support but as a wish of the bishop to have uniform parishes. Which is the good Bishop’s right, and he is successful. every one of the 8 Parishes in my area are carbon copies of each other. They are all the same which is why if one does not like the 1960s and 70s style of worship, one is out of luck. Because 20 miles away is a jam packed SSPX chapel that many of us dont go to out of obedience to our Bishop and ultimately our Pope. We have people who want the EF, we have priests that can and do request to say it. We have Mass in basque, Spanish, english, polish, and “teen” but we do not have an EF. Now I may be frustrated with that, but it is not my paygrade to question the Bishop. And though I may not understand or agree with what I think are his reasons, I am called to obedience. I also believe that many people like our Bishop believe that the EF is divisive and well, it kind of is. But then again so are “teen” Masses, and Spanish Masses and just about anything else. Our diocese has a mission “statement” called “All at the table” But it isnt really all of us. Just as the SSPX are called to obedience. Our Bishop has had a press release telling us the SSPX are not Catholic at all. And we should avoid going the chapels of which our area has several.
Yes, the SSPX could do some good here. Too bad they wont.
Sometimes I dont think many people know that there are still some places that are struggling with some issues that the Church is correcting. As with everything where I live it is a trickle down effect and we are still waiting for the trickle.
So for those who go to a reverent OF or have access to an EF good for you. The rest of us are with you in spirit.

Yes, the SSPX is a tool that could help. Around here there are many people hungry for what they are handing out.

I’m curious, if the SSPX 500 are such a drop in the bucket, then why are you giving them so much of your spiritual time?

I understand you’re not happy with things as they are in your area, however I do need to point out that prelatures and religious need permission from the local Bishop before coming into his area. From what you describe, I doubt he’d allow them to come into his diocese. So even after regularization, they still wouldn’t be in your area. If they are in your area and they are there uninvited, that presents a host of other issues.

 

[JReducation]

What Melchior says is very true. Even after this mess is over, a prelature can govern itself, but it cannot enter a bishop’s territory without his permission. That’s the first issue. The regularization is not a guarantee that there will be an SSPX chapel in one’s diocese.

Secondly, 500 men is a drop in the bucket. The Church is on every continent. Five hundred men, divided by the number of dioceses on this planet become a decimal. Just look at us. We’re 1.7 million. We only cover 114 countries and 48 language groups. So when we say that this is not the fix that some people think it may be, we’re speaking from experience.

Combine the great orders: Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, Salesians and Augustinians. There you have over 2 million men and women. There are dioceses that don’t have a single representative from any of these. In my own diocese, I believe that we have 40 Franciscans, about 12 Jesuits, 6 Dominicans, 2 Augustinians, and about 6 Carmelites. We have many religious, because our bishop likes religious. A diocese like Arlington, VA, my home diocese, has less than 25 male religious, zero societies of apostolic life, zero secular institutes, and no prelatures. Why? They don’t need them. Their bishops turns away applicants to the seminary, because there is no room in the inn.

Another point that has been made here and that I have made many times is that many traditionalists are very offensive toward religious. This does not ingratiate them with the bishops. Many Trads are rooting for the SSPX, which has been a thorn in the side of the Church for almost 40 years. However, these same folks, never have a pleasant thing to say about the thousands of priests and brothers who belong to religious communities and have stuck it out during the last 40 years trying to make things work for the good of the Church.

They never make a positive statement about the fact that superiors have had to deal with many problem children and have managed to keep their communities inside the Church. As much as people want to whine, complain about and criticize the Jesuits, their superior general has done an excellent job at maintaining one of the strongest bodies of missionaries around the world, 18,000 men is not a small number to govern. The Jesuits are not easy to govern, because of how St. Ignatius set them up. That poor man (the General Superior) never gets a positive review in any traditionalist magazine.

The point is that there are going to be Catholics who won’t feel warm and fuzzy about this reunification, because they have a strong sense of fidelity to the men who have been here with them during the last three decades and they see this as being unfair treatment.

I can only give one example. In our ministry, pro-life work, in this diocese, more than 1200 men and women are served every year. In other words, that many babies are saved from abortion. The people in this diocese literally finance this ministry. Parishes have centers assigned to them and it’s their obligation to finance the centers and pay for everything from utilities to diapers. But these parishes, 111 of them, associate this ministry with Franciscans and Jesuits. They have a strong affection for these two communities and see them in a very positive light. The SSPX has two chapels in this diocese and they do not provide any support to pro-life ministry. They refuse to pray outside of abortion clinics with us, because we pray with Protestants and other people who are not Catholic.

Today, we had the annual life chain. Every parish goes out to the main highways from 2:00 to 3:00 and forms a chain that spans across the diocese, almost 300 sq miles. The SSPX refuses to participate and so do their faithful.

Catholics around here see this being led by Franciscans, Jesuits, diocesan priests, religious sisters and lay people from diverse spiritualities, except the SSPXers. The argument that one can stay at one’s chapel and pray does not hold water, because the idea is to pray and be a visible witness to the Gospel of Life, not to hide the lamp under the bushel.

It’s things like this that people mean when they speak about the fairness of the excitement over the SSPX coming home. We had Augustinians come from NYC just to be with us for this Life Chain. These friars flew here to pray with us for one hour. This moved the hearts of several thousand people who saw them and heard them speak.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[melchesidechpio]

I pray that the SSPX comes in 100% good standing with Rome. Until then I do not endorse them but I just pray for them to be united with Rome fully. It would be beneficial

 

[Faithdancer]

In my diocees we can not have the EF. It would shake up our diocese if there was an EF Mass within an hour of 20 parishes.

500 priests is nothing to shake a stick at. It was less than that that did so much damage with the scandals.

My only point is that I live in a place where the SSPX could do a lot of good. I wish they could do that good within the Church because outside of it they can do no good at all. Only harm. It is the SSPX’s fault that they are not in the Church. We can all agree on that. What I dont understand is all the absolute disdain and hatred for people that we should be praying for and who’s hands consecrate our Lords Body. Again, no one would be allowed to speak this way about the Eastern Orthodox but with the SSPX it is open season. I just see a lot of heart hardening with this group. Sad. And such a double standard. But it has been that way since I joined so I guess I should not be surprised. I would like to see more compassion from all sides.

See this thread for an example:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=699097

570 priests, actually, according to the CNA article.
When I called our local chapel and told the man who answered that I was interested in attending a Mass there, he expressed apprehension that I might get in trouble with my parish priest. His entire attitude during our brief conversation was one of humility and concern. This is hardly the arrogant, defiant kind of posture that some think is characteristic of SSPX.

I agree that no one should be dismissive of 570 priests, and the half a million plus souls to whom they pastor. We need SSPX back in the fold in a big way, in my opinion, if only to counter the secularist and modernist trends, and to kick start attendance in some of the languishing churches and seminaries of Europe and the US. The Vatican wants SSPX in, and all of us should too.

My goal in attending an SSPX chapel is to do my own small part to reach out to these brothers in Christ, not in a spirit of rebellion but in a spirit of grass roots fence mending. As I get to know some of the parishioners I will do my best to persuade them to attend our one diocesan EF Mass (if they aren’t already). I will always, of course, attend a diocesan Mass on Sunday, and am happy to go to both when time and gas permit.

 

[Faithdancer]

Combine the great orders: Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, Salesians and Augustinians. There you have over 2 million men and women. There are dioceses that don’t have a single representative from any of these. In my own diocese, I believe that we have 40 Franciscans, about 12 Jesuits, 6 Dominicans, 2 Augustinians, and about 6 Carmelites. We have many religious, because our bishop likes religious. A diocese like Arlington, VA, my home diocese, has less than 25 male religious, zero societies of apostolic life, zero secular institutes, and no prelatures. Why? They don’t need them. Their bishops turns away applicants to the seminary, because there is no room in the inn.

Another point that has been made here and that I have made many times is that many traditionalists are very offensive toward religious. This does not ingratiate them with the bishops. Many Trads are rooting for the SSPX, which has been a thorn in the side of the Church for almost 40 years. However, these same folks, never have a pleasant thing to say about the thousands of priests and brothers who belong to religious communities and have stuck it out during the last 40 years trying to make things work for the good of the Church.
Fraternally, Br. JR, FFV

It must be quite different back east because in Southern California there are a number of parishes staffed by religious order priests. I work at a parish myself which is staffed by Divine Word Missionaries. I have never heard any Catholics, traditionalist or otherwise, in the many churches I’ve attended in Southern California speak anything but good of the religious order priests. They are treated and regarded, as far as I can tell, as equal in every way to secular, diocesan priests, no higher and no lower, which is as it should be. In fact there is a Norbertine abbey in Orange County whose priests are considered excellent celebrants of the EF Mass. Unfortunately, they are the only religious order priests I know of in this area who support the traditionalist Catholics. It should be a two way street…

All faithful brothers and sisters in the religious orders deserve our greatest love and respect. At the same time, we all have the duty to sanctify our everyday lives- this is one of the most empowering messages to come out of Vatican II, and imbues the spirituality of Opus Dei as well. Anti-clericalism is a good thing, but no one should be against the humble, hard working vowed religious in our Church.

 

[Faithdancer]

Just want to clarify that in using the term “anti-clericalism” in my previous post, I am using it in the narrow sense, that is as meaning opposition to a sense of privilege or superiority among those in religious authority, as well as to mean a much fuller sense of participation and responsibility by the lay faithful. I follow the definition of St. Josemaria in this regard, which is well-articulated here: josemariaescriva.info/article/the-right-kind-of-anti-clericalism

 

[Timothysis]

We need SSPX back in the fold in a big way, in my opinion, if only to counter the secularist and modernist trends, and to kick start attendance in some of the languishing churches and seminaries of Europe and the US. The Vatican wants SSPX in, and all of us should too.
.

Please explain how a priestly society who cannot enter a diocese without the permission of the bishop will “counter” anything, or “kick start attendance” in churches and seminaries.

 

[Faithdancer]

Please explain how a priestly society who cannot enter a diocese without the permission of the bishop will “counter” anything, or “kick start attendance” in churches and seminaries.

Once SSPX is re-assimilated, permission of many bishops, particularly those who are appointments of Pope Benedict XVI, will follow. Our Pope is doing his best, evidenced by his appointments in Minnesota, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and elsewhere, to counter the liturgical abuses and the liberal/modernist/Protestant spirit which has infected some Catholic dioceses.

As far as attendance, perhaps a comparison of average attendance/capacity at the SSPX chapel and the typical, comparably-sized Novus Ordo parish church is in order.

I noticed that you don’t dispute “secularist and modernist trends.” I’m glad there is clarity on that point, as well as on the overarching point that the Vatican wants SSPX back in the fold and therefore, even if for no other reason than that, we should too.

 

[curlycool89]

The very fact that we have constant threads on them show that they are having an effect.

That’s just self-perpetuating. You can also find places on the internet that have non-stop discussions about UFO abductions, but we’d never say that just because they’re being “talked about” means that it must be “important” or must “have an effect”.

In the same way, when Michael Jackson died, that’s all that was on CNN. Meanwhile, the rest of the world was focused on the riots in Iran. One of those was much more important than the other. Buzz does not equal importance.

Also, some might disagree with me, but do you notice the conversations Rome is having about Vatican II and the documents of Vatican II? Notice the clarifications that have been forthcoming?

Or that’s just a coincidence because this particular Pope has an interest in all the theology and documents (it is the 50th anniversary after all) of VII.

To attribute all the buzz just to the SSPX would be giving them way too much credit.

I am not saying that the SSPX will save the Church or anything like that, but this small group of priests, by insisting that we remain faithful to tradition, is having an effect.

And at the same time, by incorporating disobedience into what they do they are at the same time giving an example of “just do your own thing when you don’t like what’s happening”, which is a terrible example to give people in this day and age of “me! me! me! I’m always right”.

Radical obedience to Christ and His Church would stand as a much greater example in this day and age.

Right. All I’m saying is that the conversations are happening. I believe if the SSPX become regularized, their numbers will be added to the number of Ecclesia Dei groups who are having these conversations and saying “Look at this beautiful tradition we have. Let’s not let it die. Look at our traditional devotions. Let’s not let them be forgotten.”

But I think it’s also just as important to recognize that all of these will survive without the SSPX. Traditional Catholicism (however that is being defined on this forum now) does not require the SSPX to survive or exist, and will in fact continue to exist independent of what happens with the SSPX situation. You can bet on that.

 

[Lormar]

 

[JReducation]

It must be quite different back east because in Southern California there are a number of parishes staffed by religious order priests. I work at a parish myself which is staffed by Divine Word Missionaries. I have never heard any Catholics, traditionalist or otherwise, in the many churches I’ve attended in Southern California speak anything but good of the religious order priests.

I didn’t make myself clear. I am not referring to the man in the pew who has religious in his parish or the person in a ministry run by religious. For example, in Respect Life in this diocese, the Franciscans are dearly loved by the volunteers, clients, and secular clergy who work with us.

I’m referring to those traditionalists who keep saying that the SSPX coming home is going to change things. Religious are starting to get tired of it and taking it offensively, because the statement gives no credit to those millions of men who have stayed with the Church for hundreds of years, through good times and bad. It gives no credit to those superiors who had to deal with problem children. It gives no credit to those who are working hard in the Church and are very orthodox, even if they are not traditionalists.

It’s also not a practical way of thinking. As I said, if one divides the number of SSPX priests by the number of dioceses in the world, you get a decimal. You can’t cover the whole Church with SSPX priests nor is it desirable. Diversity of charism is part of our Catholic identity.

They are treated and regarded, as far as I can tell, as equal in every way to secular, diocesan priests, no higher and no lower, which is as it should be.

If you mean that they are treated with the same kindness, respect cooperation and good will, that’s right. If you mean that they are treated as if they were the same, that is wrong. The Church has made it very clear, many times over, that the diocesan priest is a secular man. Canon Law makes this clear, the Council of Trent, the writings of popes up to Benedict XVI. The religious is a consecrated man and is on another plane. This is also made clear by Trent, Vatican II, Bl. John Paul, CCC, and today by Pope Benedict XVI.

In a recent meeting with the US bishops he corrected them for not promoting religious life in the United States and for allowing the lay faithful to be blind to religious life, because the bishops use religious as if they were secular. His feeling is that when a layman walks into a space operated by religious, in habit or out of habit, the practices, the way of doing things, the customs of that community, and the vision and mission of that community should stand out and apart from the diocesan clergy. He told the bishops that they have to promote male religious life, not just promote priesthood for their dioceses.

In fact there is a Norbertine abbey in Orange County whose priests are considered excellent celebrants of the EF Mass. Unfortunately, they are the only religious order priests I know of in this area who support the traditionalist Catholics. It should be a two way street…

Norbertines can do that. Most of us cannot. For a superior to make commitment to the EF he must have the permission of his constitutions. SP speaks about Proper Law. If that permission is not in the constitutions, the superior cannot make that commitment for the community.

What has to happen? The community must hold a constitutional chapter to amend the constitution. At that chapter 2/3 + 1 of the delegates must vote in favor of the amendment. The amendment is sent to the Holy Father for approval. Religious men cannot have constitutional chapters without the permission of the Holy Father. You have to put in a request for such a chapter at least three years before you hold it. It takes the curia about 18 to 36 months to get an answer back to you. The request must go to the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. The Sacred Congregation reviews your request to make sure that you have a good reason for modifying your constitutions and forward the request, with its recommendation for approval to the Holy Father. The Holy Father’s secretary approves it. We can’t just say that all Franciscans, Carmelites, Paulists, Trinitarians, etc can now support the EF.

Some constitutions allow the superior freedom to grant permission for that which is not in the constitution.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

I’m referring to those traditionalists who keep saying that the SSPX coming home is going to change things. Religious are starting to get tired of it and taking it offensively, because the statement gives no credit to those millions of men who have stayed with the Church for hundreds of years, through good times and bad. It gives no credit to those superiors who had to deal with problem children. It gives no credit to those who are working hard in the Church and are very orthodox, even if they are not traditionalists.

Hold on Brother Jay,

The statement that the SSPX can do a lot of good in the church says nothing about dedicated Religious - absolutely nothing!

If anything, one would think it says negative things about all the wonderful secular priests who are offering Masses every day.

It is not saying anything about them either.

However, an obedient SSPX can do good to the service of the Church.

Archbishop DiNoia, was asked in a recent interview

What else positive can they bring?

DiNoia: If they are accepted by the Church and restored to full communion, they will be a sort of living witness to the continuity. They can be perfectly happy being in the Catholic Church, so they would be a living testimony to show that the continuity before and after the Council is real.

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-dinoia-ecclesia-dei-and-the-society-of-st.-pius-x/#ixzz28qJgOWER

So it is not a bad thing to say that the Society can do a lot of good and it is not an indictment on anyone else.

Please, please do not take it that way.