Talks over with SSPX?

[Denise1957]

Having been a missionary opened my eyes to many things. One of them was accepting the fact that Europe and the USA are not the center of the world or the Church. The other was that with the exception of the white population, the rest of the people in the Southern Hemisphere are nominally Catholic and have always been nominally Catholic, because what we think of as tradition, they think of as European and American colonialism.

They can’t help that. The white minority adheres to these traditions. That’s not bad. However, the white minority also adheres to racial discrimination against the mestizos, blacks and Indians. The prevailing comment when someone makes a mistake is, “You’re as dumb as an Indian.” If you’re sweaty from the gym or whatever, a typical white Latino expression is “You smell like a n i g g e r.” I think both statements are utterly disgusting. My saying so got me into trouble with many white Catholics down there.

Now, since these are the same people that you would find clamoring for “tradition”, how much Catholicism can we expect from the mestizo, Indian and black Latino? They’re either cool non practicing or very devout, but with very different customs from those of their white Catholic brethren.

There is more to conquer here than just introducing the Tridentine form. There is a hatred toward those people who subscribe to the Tridentine Form and the form becomes “guilty by association.” For some mestizos, becoming a Traditionalist is socially upward mobility. Don’t ask me why? Maybe the fact that the whites have usually been wealthy.

Were you a missionary in Brazil? I’m sorry to hear that many white Catholics made racist comments where you hapenned to be. I don’t think that your personal experience quite lines up with all other’s experience in South America. You mention that the people in the southern Hemisphere are nominally Catholic. But the Southern Hemisphere is a big place. Have you seen the film, ‘For Greater Glory?’ You might not consider Mexico to be the southern Hemisphere, but Catholics, rich and poor, fought to maintain their Catholic Faith. They were not nominally Catholic. They were willing to give their lives for the Faith, and many did.

Also, the FSSP have an apostolate in South America, but I can’t remember now what country. There’s a DVD which descibes it, that I purchased. The FSSP priest there explains the simple and humble faith of the people there, and that they (the priests) are welcomed and accepted everywhere they go. The people are just happy to have the sacraments and Mass. No evidence that they feel repressed or oppressed by white people. I’ll try to find out what country it is.

My understanding of the situation in Brazil is that it’s a very secular country, and Catholicism must compete with non-Catholic denominations. That could also explain the secular approach to religious activities.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Thanks guys. I don’t know much about Eastern Canon Law. I know that the other way around it works. The Eastern priest can concelebrate in any of the Latin rites, but didn’t know that it went both ways, because some things don’t seem to go both ways.

Unfortunately, we still have some people who refuse to give Holy Communion to Eastern Catholic infants attending a Roman Rite mass, which is absurd to the extreme. Don’t look at me. When they come in and say that they are Melkite and that they have a 9 month old, I tell our priests to give them Holy Communion. We even have a special little spoon just for that purpose. We keep it in our friary sacristy (really a closet ).

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

The reason I’ve raised this because I’ve seen some sentiments from the SSPX that they don’t even regards the Eastern Rites as equals. Some of them see it as a “good enough compromise for now” if one has no access to the TLM but there is an Eastern Catholic Church.

 

[pnewton]

Great…now I need to go look up the definition of nebulous.

I am a little cloudy on that definition.

 

[Boulder257]

I am a little cloudy on that definition.

Hah! Nice one!

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Thanks for the clarification.

Always my pleasure.

 

[JReducation]

Does anyone know anything about Priests break away to found an “SSPX of the Strict Observance”?

If this is true, there is even more urgency in having the SSPX return to full communion. This can lead to a full blown schism.

I have to admit that I’m horribly scandalized by this group, if what the article says is true. Obedience to a superior is not something that one negotiates, especially a superior general. Even in a society of apostolic life, there is a promise of obedience to the superior and to the constitutions.

They argue that Bishop Fellay’s tenure is too long, 12 years each term. But that’s not the bishop’s fault. That was written into their constitutions. It is the constitution that decides the terms of office and the criteria for election.

They argue that the superior general has dismissed some members for dissenting. This can be challenged in an ecclesial tribunal. You don’t have to found a new institute. Canon Law says that you have a right to a hearing.

They argue the the superior general punishes dissenters. I’m not sure the degree of the dissent. However, I am sure of one thing. Superiors general have the authority to punish anyone who violates the constitution. If the constitution says that the brethren will comply with the superior general in all things but sin, and the person fails to comply, the superior has the right to punish and even to imprison the perpetrator. And no, you cannot decide what is or is not a sin. The sin has to be one identified by the Church through the current Magisterium. If the superior orders you to eat steak on Friday, you cannot disobey because eating meat on Friday is a sin. It is not a sin if it is not prohibited by the Church. In addition, Canon Law allows superiors to override the constitutions under certain circumstances.

They argue that they are not allowed to express their opinion. Well, no one who operates under a bishop or a superior is allowed to express an opinion contrary to that of his bishop or his superior. That’s been tradition for centuries. Some superiors and bishops overlook it, so as not to attract attention to the individual. They don’t have to overlook it.

I guess I my question is, who gives them recognition? To be an association of the Christian faithful and to publicly call yourself Catholic, you must have permission either from the local bishop, from your superior, or from the Holy See.

Do they have such permission?

If not, they are not a juridical person.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Alfonsus]

“SSPX of the Strict Observance”

I know it is sad and quite almost naturally coming, disobedience lead to further disobedience…
But I can’t… really can’t… hold my laughter reading the “Strict Observance” part of the title…

 

[JReducation]

I know it is sad and quite almost naturally coming, disobedience lead to further disobedience…
But I can’t… really can’t… hold my laughter reading the “Strict Observance” part of the title…

Let me get this right. This is for real. This is not a simple rant of a few SSPX priests, a rant that will blow over in a few weeks?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

Let me get this right. This is for real. This is not a simple rant of a few SSPX priests, a rant that will blow over in a few weeks?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Priests have left the SSPX before. They almost always become sedevacantists.

What’s different is that they want to continue to refer to themselves as SSPX.

What’s weird is that Fellay has not even signed the documents. If he doesn’t, I see them as losing their steam. If he does, there might be other priests who join them.

This is a mess.

 

[robert7685]

Let me get this right. This is for real. This is not a simple rant of a few SSPX priests, a rant that will blow over in a few weeks?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I don’t know how for real it is. As far as I know, Only Tradition In Action has talked about this. That site has about the same credibility as the supermarket tabloids in most trad circles.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

I think the SSPX is small and people who want to split from it and form their own group are a minority within a minority.

Hmmm.

Could be good for Bp. Fellay if it takes the ‘Union with Rome Under My Exacting Terms Only’ tendency with it. We know Christians by their love and by the peace of Christ that is with them. Being cantankerous all the time really isn’t the thing.

Give it another few years. Time grinds down the mightiest. I’m sure it will all get sorted out in the end and maybe sooner than people think.

 

[choliks]

This is sad. Those who are taking their disobedience a notch further are becoming more and more like the reformers of the 16th century.

 

[ProVobis]

Let me get this right. This is for real. This is not a simple rant of a few SSPX priests, a rant that will blow over in a few weeks?

When I hear the official Latin designation, then it will be real (for me).

 

[JReducation]

Priests have left the SSPX before. They almost always become sedevacantists.

What’s different is that they want to continue to refer to themselves as SSPX.

What’s weird is that Fellay has not even signed the documents. If he doesn’t, I see them as losing their steam. If he does, there might be other priests who join them.

This is a mess.

I think they’re trying to imitate the reforms of the major orders.

From the Cistercians, come the Trappists

From the Friars Minor, come the Franciscans

From the Carmelites, come the Discalced Carmelites

The big difference here is that the reformers of the major orders were going back to their roots, but their roots were always validated by the Church. When the Trappists went back to St. Bernard, the Franciscans to St. Francis, or the Carmelites to the early hermits, these were approved founders and charisms. They were truly reforming, not breaking away.

Archbishop Lefebvre, on the other hand is not endorsed by the Church. He died outside of the Church.

Another problem that I see with the things said in this article, if they are true, is the way that they speak about Archbishop Lefebvre. They speak about him as if he has the same authority and infallibility as a pope. In the great orders of the Church: Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans, Discalced Carmelites, Missionaries of Charity and Servites, we speak about our founders with great love and reverence, as if they were alive and about to walk into the room. However, we do not put the founder above the pope, no matter how bad the pope is. The orders survived under the Borgia popes. They still paid homage to them.

I don’t know how for real it is. As far as I know, Only Tradition In Action has talked about this. That site has about the same credibility as the supermarket tabloids in most trad circles.

I don’t know anything about this site. But some of the names sound very familiar. There is a Fr. Pfeifer (sp?) whom I believe was with Bishop Williamson, instigating a coup against Bishop Fellay. I can see him involved in something like this. I’m surprised that Bishop Williamson is not. That makes me wonder, if there is more to this story.

This is sad. Those who are taking their disobedience a notch further are becoming more and more like the reformers of the 16th century.

But not the Catholic reformers.

When I hear the official Latin designation, then it will be real (for me).

I’m not sure what difference that would make. The SSPX rarely uses Latin to communicate with the public. Most of their communication is in French or English.

I think, like the rest of us, they may use Latin for official languages, but not for communication purposes. For example, we never communicate in Latin. Everything is translated into six major languages: English, Spanish, French, Italian, German, and Arabic.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Franciscan designation in Latin, except the names of the orders.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I read about his the other night also. I understand that it is a real thing and that the priests in question have caused problems in their parish/chapels and in their regions before.

I see this as a terrible thing. I read a few comments where people were saying that it would help Bishop Feelay because the remaining priests would be more truly orthodox (non-schismatic), but to me it is just horribly, terribly sad.

Does anyone know anything about Priests break away to found an “SSPX of the Strict Observance”?

If this is true, there is even more urgency in having the SSPX return to full communion. This can lead to a full blown schism.

I have to admit that I’m horribly scandalized by this group, if what the article says is true. Obedience to a superior is not something that one negotiates, especially a superior general. Even in a society of apostolic life, there is a promise of obedience to the superior and to the constitutions.

They argue that Bishop Fellay’s tenure is too long, 12 years each term. But that’s not the bishop’s fault. That was written into their constitutions. It is the constitution that decides the terms of office and the criteria for election.

They argue that the superior general has dismissed some members for dissenting. This can be challenged in an ecclesial tribunal. You don’t have to found a new institute. Canon Law says that you have a right to a hearing.

They argue the the superior general punishes dissenters. I’m not sure the degree of the dissent. However, I am sure of one thing. Superiors general have the authority to punish anyone who violates the constitution. If the constitution says that the brethren will comply with the superior general in all things but sin, and the person fails to comply, the superior has the right to punish and even to imprison the perpetrator. And no, you cannot decide what is or is not a sin. The sin has to be one identified by the Church through the current Magisterium. If the superior orders you to eat steak on Friday, you cannot disobey because eating meat on Friday is a sin. It is not a sin if it is not prohibited by the Church. In addition, Canon Law allows superiors to override the constitutions under certain circumstances.

They argue that they are not allowed to express their opinion. Well, no one who operates under a bishop or a superior is allowed to express an opinion contrary to that of his bishop or his superior. That’s been tradition for centuries. Some superiors and bishops overlook it, so as not to attract attention to the individual. They don’t have to overlook it.

I guess I my question is, who gives them recognition? To be an association of the Christian faithful and to publicly call yourself Catholic, you must have permission either from the local bishop, from your superior, or from the Holy See.

Do they have such permission?

If not, they are not a juridical person.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

From the Carmelites, come the Discalced Carmelites

You know, I don’t have any of the Carmelites books in front of me, so I could be way off, and Friar David probably could help with this, but didn’t both St Teresa of Avila and St John of the Cross have a really hard time with their reforms?

Wasn’t St John of the Cross actually put in jail?

St Teresa was treated pretty horribly too.

My point is that sometimes only after centuries is the fruit of one’s work apparent.

I believe that is how some of these folks are seeing themselves even though they’re obviously wrong.

 

[JReducation]

I read about his the other night also. I understand that it is a real thing and that the priests in question have caused problems in their parish/chapels and in their regions before.

I see this as a terrible thing. I read a few comments where people were saying that it would help Bishop Feelay because the remaining priests would be more truly orthodox (non-schismatic), but to me it is just horribly, terribly sad.

It’s sad and very dangerous. I can’t see the CDF even bothering to dialogue with a rogue group.

You know, I don’t have any of the Carmelites books in front of me, so I could be way off, and Friar David probably could help with this, but didn’t both St Teresa of Avila and St John of the Cross have a really hard time with their reforms?

Wasn’t St John of the Cross actually put in jail?

St Teresa was treated pretty horribly too.

My point is that sometimes only after centuries is the fruit of one’s work apparent.

I believe that is how some of these folks are seeing themselves even though they’re obviously wrong.

All reformers have had to face many challenges. Teresa and John were no exception to the rule. John was in prison. But we have to take this in context. A superior general, even today, has the authority to imprison you if you violate the rule or constitutions. From the perspective of the Provincial Prior, John was insubordinate. The difference between John and these men is that Teresa had a letter from the Holy See and another from the King authorizing the opening of the new priories and monasteries.

Teresa was interesting. She received her abuse from the communities that she founded, not so much from her community of origin. They considered her to be intrusive. This too has to be taken in proper context. In the monastic life, every house is autonomous and the abbess is the supreme ruler. In their mind, the prioress was like an abbess. In Teresa’s mind, a prioress was attached to the the corporate body of houses. She felt entitled to oversee the houses that she founded.

If these chaps are comparing themselves to the reformers of the great orders, they don’t know much about religious life or Church law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

I’m not sure what difference that would make. The SSPX rarely uses Latin to communicate with the public.

Br JR, I believe their official acronym-name is FSSPX - Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii X.

How do I know this “Strict Observance” isn’t just some made-up Anglo or Franco extension of the fraternity? And do we know who is on which side here?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Does anyone know anything about Priests break away to found an “SSPX of the Strict Observance”?

If this is true, there is even more urgency in having the SSPX return to full communion. This can lead to a full blown schism.

I have to admit that I’m horribly scandalized by this group, if what the article says is true. Obedience to a superior is not something that one negotiates, especially a superior general. Even in a society of apostolic life, there is a promise of obedience to the superior and to the constitutions.

They argue that Bishop Fellay’s tenure is too long, 12 years each term. But that’s not the bishop’s fault. That was written into their constitutions. It is the constitution that decides the terms of office and the criteria for election.

They argue that the superior general has dismissed some members for dissenting. This can be challenged in an ecclesial tribunal. You don’t have to found a new institute. Canon Law says that you have a right to a hearing.

They argue the the superior general punishes dissenters. I’m not sure the degree of the dissent. However, I am sure of one thing. Superiors general have the authority to punish anyone who violates the constitution. If the constitution says that the brethren will comply with the superior general in all things but sin, and the person fails to comply, the superior has the right to punish and even to imprison the perpetrator. And no, you cannot decide what is or is not a sin. The sin has to be one identified by the Church through the current Magisterium. If the superior orders you to eat steak on Friday, you cannot disobey because eating meat on Friday is a sin. It is not a sin if it is not prohibited by the Church. In addition, Canon Law allows superiors to override the constitutions under certain circumstances.

They argue that they are not allowed to express their opinion. Well, no one who operates under a bishop or a superior is allowed to express an opinion contrary to that of his bishop or his superior. That’s been tradition for centuries. Some superiors and bishops overlook it, so as not to attract attention to the individual. They don’t have to overlook it.

I guess I my question is, who gives them recognition? To be an association of the Christian faithful and to publicly call yourself Catholic, you must have permission either from the local bishop, from your superior, or from the Holy See.

Do they have such permission?

If not, they are not a juridical person.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

For some reason I ended up in contact with a person who belongs to the SSPX. He is also against Bishop Fellay and claims that Bishop Fellay has no jurisdiction over them. There was this issue of someone being denied Communion. I told him it is the Bishop’s perogative to do that. He told me “no”. The SSPX exists because of some legal mumbo-jumbo in Canon Law (I never bothered to understand it) but basically the idea is that even their own Bishops have no say over them.

This is the wierdest ecclesiology I have ever heard from an Apostolic Church. It does not even qualify as “traditional”.

 

[JReducation]

Br JR, I believe their official acronym-name is FSSPX - Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii X.

How do I know this “Strict Observance” isn’t just some made-up Anglo or Franco extension of the fraternity? And do we know who is on which side here?

Ohhhhhhh . . . OK, now I get what you mean. The person who wrote the article was trying to get the letters in English. From what I learned this afternoon from an SSPX priest, they claim to be the FSSPX-OP.

The problem with this is that this is highly unusual for a society of apostolic life to have an obedience that follows the “primitive observance”. The reason that they have the F in their name is because they were pious unions. All of them were called “fraternities”. The oldest are the Maryknoll Fathers. Societies of apostolic life came into being in 1983 and Archbishop Lefebvre has not been dead for centuries.

There are Franciscans, Carmelites, and Cistercians of the Primitive Observance. But they are truly primitive. They go back hundreds of years.

One has to ask, what is it that they are observing. They are not an order. Only orders have a rule. Societies of apostolic life and religious congregations do not have a rule. The live by a constitution, which is very different from a rule of life. When one says “primitive observance” one is referring to observing the rule as it was observed when the order was founded.

I find that part confusing. They keep saying that they are observing the Archbishop’s intentions and wishes. But the Archbishop’s intentions and wishes had nothing to do with their way of life. They are secular priests. His intentions and wishes had to do with ecclesial disciplines and doctrinal points.

For some reason I ended up in contact with a person who belongs to the SSPX. He is also against Bishop Fellay and claims that Bishop Fellay has no jurisdiction over them. There was this issue of someone being denied Communion. I told him it is the Bishop’s perogative to do that. He told me “no”. The SSPX exists because of some legal mumbo-jumbo in Canon Law (I never bothered to understand it) but basically the idea is that even their own Bishops have no say over them.

This is the wierdest ecclesiology I have ever heard from an Apostolic Church. It does not even qualify as “traditional”.

Canonically, this is correct. Since they have no place in the Church, they don’t really exist as a public association. Since Bishop Fellay has no canonical place in the Church, he cannot exercise jurisdiction over anyone. Therefore, he cannot celebrate the sacraments or deny the sacraments. He should be sitting on the bench like at a football game.

However, in practice, THEY have always claimed that their constitutions have authority. If they believe this, then they have to comply with them. Their constitutions say that the Society is governed by the Superior General who is the voice of Christ and it is he who holds the Society together.

Bishop Fellay has jurisdiction, because they elected him superior general. One need not be a bishop to be a superior general. They could have elected a deacon. In a clerical society, the superior must be a cleric, period.

The issue is that you can’t have a constitution and a general chapter in July and claim that you have no superior and no one with jurisdiction over you in October. Well, I guess you can; but in a rational world, this is inconsistent.

Again, I’ll use my example, which is what I know best. Our constitutions say that we must follow the Rule of St. Francis to the letter. The rule says that the superior is elected by the friars in solemn vows for a period of six years and can be re-elected for six more. Then he must step down. He can be elected again later, but he cannot have three consecutive terms.

However, the rule also says that Francis vows obedience to the bishops and the brothers are bound to obey Francis and those whom Francis obeys. When our little community, Franciscans of Life, became autonomous, we did not have an election. I was appointed superior general until such time as the bishop feels that the community is solid enough to hold an electoral chapter.

The point that I’m making is that you cannot toggle between two laws. The one law says that you have to elect the superior. The other says that you obey the bishop. In this case, the bishop wants to appoint the first superior. We can’t accept the bishop’s appointee today and in three months claim that he has no jurisdiction, because he was not elected. It’s either statute number one or statute number two, but if there is a conflict, the one with the highest authority carries the day. In this case, obedience to the Church carried the day and the superior general was appointed.

This is the same case, either they follow tradition, comply with their constitutions and submit to their elected superior or they deny the authority of the constitution and the superior, but then they should not have had a chapter. What authority does the chapter have? A chapter only has authority if you have someone to enforce it. What this person said to you is a very confusing notion of how an institute is to be governed.

From my conversation with my friend, he seemed rather relaxed about this group. When I asked, if this is just a tantrum that will blow over in three months, he just laughed. He didn’t seem to know much about it or interested in knowing more either. This may very well be the case of the kid who runs away from home until supper time.

Very interesting. If I live long enough, I’d love to write a book on the SSPX as an observer. I’m sure that there will be many books written by insiders. Things always look more interesting from both sides of the window.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV