The Latest Public Statement of the SSPX

[Dee_S]

And that’s something we can memorize.

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
CONCERNING THE REMISSION OF THE EXCOMMUNICATION
OF THE FOUR BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE
“In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” – the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope – to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. The collegial bodies with which the Congregation studies questions which arise (especially the ordinary Wednesday meeting of Cardinals and the annual or biennial Plenary Session) ensure the involvement of the Prefects of the different Roman Congregations and representatives from the world’s Bishops in the process of decision-making.** The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life”**
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

 

[ProVobis]

Oh several people have already corrected me on this have they? Who?

(raising hand)

 

[otjm]

The problem is a radical mistrust of the Church. The SSPX have a two-footed stance: the first is a preservation of integral Catholic life, which doesn’t just mean sticking to the Tridentine Mass, but entails a complete Catholic lifestyle: doctrine, dress, entertainment, education, etc. Whether this is actually achieved is another matter; it is at least the objective.

The second is a rejection of the contemporary secular mentality, with its religious and moral relativism and a political system that is not subject to any constraint other than the will of the voters, which in practice means the will of the legislators. Traditionalists do not like modern democracy. A restoration of a Church-State political system is high on the agenda.

For the SSPX, the Church today neither preserves an integral Catholic life for its faithful nor keeps secular thinking out of its structures. The fear is that if the SSPX makes a deal with Rome, the pressure from secularism, already great, would become too much to resist. Secularism would finally break into the laager.

What is really needed is a consensus by world political leaders that Pope Francis is a religious fanatic and Catholicism a large sect. That would do wonders.

When the SSPX themselves say why they will not reunite with Rome, why is anyone going around and ascribing different motives?

The nut of the whole issue is the postion by the SSPX that a) the documents of Vatican 2 are not in accord with prior statements of doctrine and b) they cannot be interpreted in continuity with prior statements.

That is it in a nutshell. It is not about the Mass (although periodically something seems to leak out, officially or unofficially, condemning the OF); it is not about dress, doctrine as it relates to lifestyle, entertainment, education, radical mistrust, contemporary secular mindsets, or political systems. It is about the documents.

 

[otjm]

Ironic, those facts are. On a thread dedicated to pointing out the errors of a Society of clergy.

It has to be money driven. Why else would the Bishops of this country watch the meltdown ? As long as the dissident flock puts money in the kitty, all is well.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

The poll is absolutely worthless except to be thrown around as some sort of authoritative study, without any question of its underpinnings.

What do I mean? 70% to 75% of those who will self identify as “Catholic” in a poll don’t go to Mass on a regular basis, and somewhere around half of them very infrequently.

Without some information on where the sampling was done, and without clarifying questions as to the term “Catholic”, the poll is essentially meaningless.

One can hardly say a bishop has a dissident flock (which presumably means those going to church regularly) if those saying the dissident statements done’t even darken the door of the parish church.

 

[otjm]

Again with the false dichotomy. Several people have corrected you on this, and I’m going to keep calling you on it as often as you falsely state it.

Pre-V2 Catholics did both: memorize the key facts of the faith and knew how to explain them. BOTH were presented to them, and catechists (normally those were trained priests or sisters, in communion with Rome, not off the rails) verified that understanding. They verified it in a variety of ways and over time.

If you use this kind of “logic” (unconnected concepts) to teach those in your care, I question your assertions of how well you are teaching them. There is no logic in that above rhetorical question. It’s a false premise, which I did not introduce, but which you did, perhaps as a distraction. As I said in my most recent post, it is not the intellectual (ie., catechesis) which protected then or which protects now or in the future. It is FAITH. Raw faith, that theological virtue which pre-V2 Catholics were counseled to pray for daily. The children of the future will not be protected by catechesis alone. They will be protected by the depth and the commitment of their individual faith, and their frequent recourse to prayer for the protection of that faith.

Not only did I not say any of that, I said quite the opposite, in a recent post of mine, which you previously acknowledged.

Sorry, Elizabeth, but I am not going to ignore your comments. The majority of Catholic students did not attend Catholic Schools prior to Vatican 2; and of those who went to a Catholic grade school, there was another fall-off of those attending Catholic high school.
If it was a good Catholic high school (I attended two, and one was better than the other) they might have some good theology. It was, however, on a high school level, and most of the grade school work was rote memorization.

There has been a standing joke that started well before Vatican 2 and is still a problem, and that is that way, way too many students think that once they have been confirmed, they no longer need to study “religion”, and that ends any formal schooling in it. It was so before, and since Vatican 2.

Some students prior to Vatican 2 were well schooled in their faith beyond rote memorization; all too many were not. And the matter could vary by geographical area as well.

Those who had the privilege before Vatican 2 of attending 12 years of Catholic schooling on the whole knew more than those who did not; but to presume that high school students got deeply into theology in high school simply does not comport with the facts.

 

[Dee_S]

Perhaps they can’t churn out a few lines of Catechism by rote as they might have done in the past, but they can discuss their faith with better knowledge and with a better, critical understanding of basic Catholic theology. Pupils at school discuss and explore the concepts that underpin their faith these days, they question and think. That is a lot more productive than having them learn catechism and scripture by rote without daring to challenge or criticise a word of it. Do we want thinking Catholics or do we want Catholics who simply recite and nod? I speak as a teacher in a Catholic school.

:thumbsup:the accusations against you of presenting a “false dichotomy” is itself false…

“The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when the arguer claims that his conclusion is one of only two options, when in fact there are other possibilities.”

…I think one should be free to compare teaching methods in a professional fashion without ‘thought’ censorship and rash judgement tearing a good discussion apart.

There would never have been a ‘crisis in the Church’ had there not been problems of some magnitude already going on. Something was not workingthat caused it - and I’m not convinced that it is the other way around as is too often claimed.

Anyway, you are in good company with one of the greatest teachers in time, Cardinal Henry Newman:
**“I want a laity, not arrogant, not rash in speech, not disputatious, but men who know their religion, who enter into it, who know just where they stand, who know what they hold, and what they do not, who know their creed so well, that they can give an account of it, who know so much of history that they can defend it. I want an intelligent, well-instructed laity… You ought to be able to bring out what you feel and what you mean, as well as to feel and mean it”. **

 

[ProVobis]

There would never have been a ‘crisis in the Church’ had there not been problems of some magnitude already going on. Something was not workingthat caused it - and I’m not convinced that it is the other way around as is too often claimed.

But some claimed there was no crisis at all and, more to the point, that the AB had no basis for his consecration of four bishops. I’m not one of them, mind you, but just sayin.

 

[pnewton]

But some claimed there was no crisis at all and, more to the point, that the AB had no basis for his consecration of four bishops. I’m not one of them, mind you, but just sayin.

As a great man once said:

(raising hand)

…or at least I will say that they don’t make crisis like they used to. Just off hand, I would put the Orthodox split, the Reformation and the rise of humanism well ahead of the situation when the Council was called. I know the advent of the sixties was tough and needed to be addressed. I guess I am used to seeing so many thing labeled “crisis” I am slow to use this label. Let me just say that modern humanism (however that is defined), the sexual revolution and The Beatles all at the same time united to under mine the faith of many, Catholic as well as other religious and moral people. But a crisis? Eh, how about maybe?

 

[Dee_S]

But some claimed there was no crisis at all and, more to the point, that the AB had no basis for his consecration of four bishops. I’m not one of them, mind you, but just sayin.

Sorry about that Those who counted were aware of the ‘maybe crisis’ that was developing:

“We have waited a month. The attitude to which your words and acts publicly testify does not seem to have changed. It is true that We have before Us your letter of September 16, in which you affirm: "A common point unites us; the ardent desire to see the cessation of all the abuses that disfigure the church. How I wish to collaborate in this salutary work, with Your Holiness and under Your authority, so that the church may recover her true countenance.” How must these few words to which your response is limited - and which in themselves are positive - be interpreted? Pope Paul VI to the AB

That he had “no basis” for disobeying the Holy Father is now a fairly well established fact. He had nothing to fear, except fear itself, and sadly chose the wrong road to redress the (maybe) ‘crisis’ on his own, and his organization seems content to travel the same road to this day, preferring no canonical status and the real danger of not being in full communion with the Pope and the Church.

That his actions in the illicit consecrations resulted in “Ecclesia Dei” coming into being. How different things may have worked out if he had trusted the Church and accepted the invitation of Pope Paul VI?

**"**But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)"
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

 

[pnewton]

The problem is a radical mistrust of the Church. The SSPX have a two-footed stance: the first is a preservation of integral Catholic life…

The second is a rejection of the contemporary secular mentality…

For the SSPX, the Church today neither preserves an integral Catholic life for its faithful nor keeps secular thinking out of its structures. The fear is that if the SSPX makes a deal with Rome, the pressure from secularism, already great, would become too much to resist. Secularism would finally break into the laager.
.

This at least I understand better that the less important things mentioned earlier. However, my point remains that they do not have to abandon tradition or embrace a secular mentality to rejoin the Church. I assure you Brother JR does not.

Yet your last point is hard. I can understand the fear that they might be influenced more by the Catholic Church if the were to operate as a Catholic organization. However, the risk to their spirituality should be worth the advantage. I mean, they are still individually in the Catholic Church. There does not seem to be an issue of influence. If they go into full schism or fully unite, I would think the danger of influence would be about the same. Of course, this is my opinion. According to you, it is not theirs and this is the fear they have.

I would only say that they should listen to Blessed John Paul. “Be not afraid.”

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I guess my issues with SSPX is that they claim to have the real deal and be the most traditional Catholics of all. However, isn’t respecting and adhering to what your current Pope has asked a major part of being a traditional Catholic? I can’t help but make a comparison to a certain (cough, cough) Martin Luther.

 

[ProVobis]

How different things may have worked out if he had trusted the Church and accepted the invitation of Pope Paul VI?

Or even if he hadn’t reneged on his signed agreement with Cardinal Ratzinger in 1988. (Yes, he had permission to consecrate one bishop. In retrospect, it would have avoided a lot of problems even for the FSSPX themselves as it turned out.)

unavoce.org/resources/protocol-agreement-between-rome-and-saint-pius-x/

 

[Saints_Alive]

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

The poll is absolutely worthless except to be thrown around as some sort of authoritative study, without any question of its underpinnings.

What do I mean? ** 70% to 75% of those who will self identify as “Catholic” in a poll don’t go to Mass on a regular basis, and somewhere around half of them very infrequently.**

Without some information on where the sampling was done, and without clarifying questions as to the term “Catholic”, the poll is essentially meaningless.

One can hardly say a bishop has a dissident flock (which presumably means those going to church regularly) if those saying the dissident statements done’t even darken the door of the parish church.

Where are you getting the numbers there ? Are they just made up or do you have a source of documentation ?

And I don’t recall mentioning a poll. What specific poll do you attribute those numbers to ?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Where are you getting the numbers there ? Are they just made up or do you have a source of documentation ?

And I don’t recall mentioning a poll. What specific poll do you attribute those numbers to ?

The numbers that you are questioning (that you bolded) have been confirmed by other sources and by current priests in many parishes, who have studied this information.

 

[Saints_Alive]

The numbers that you are questioning (that you bolded) have been confirmed by other sources and by current priests in many parishes, who have studied this information.

OK, the way that member worded it, any poll taken by Catholics is only 25-30 % accurate.

He didn’t say “that poll”, or “this poll”, he said “a” poll.

So no poll on Catholic issues is of any use ? Is that what you are saying here ?

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTICE

I have combed this thread and have deleted most posts that do not speak about the SSPX situation. This was very hard work. Please do not deviate again.

 

[rom422]

I have really enjoyed this thread. Thank you, everyone!

 

[Dee_S]

MODERATOR NOTICE

I have combed this thread and have deleted most posts that do not speak about the SSPX situation. This was very hard work. Please do not deviate again.

So sorry, from one of the offenders, and…

 

[Dee_S]

Or even if he hadn’t reneged on his signed agreement with Cardinal Ratzinger in 1988. (Yes, he had permission to consecrate one bishop. In retrospect, it would have avoided a lot of problems even for the FSSPX themselves as it turned out.)

unavoce.org/resources/protocol-agreement-between-rome-and-saint-pius-x/

:thumbsup:that it would have, and thanks for the link to this onUna Voce much appreciated…yes this extract shows that they did indeed have permission and the security of chosing one of their own!

1. The Problem of the Bishop

5.1 On the doctrinal (ecclesiological) level, the guarantee of stability
and maintenance of the life and activity of the Society is assured by its
erection as a Society of apostolic life of pontifical right, and the
approval of its Statutes by the Holy Father.

5.2 But, for the practical and psychological reasons, the consecration of
a member of the Society as bishop seems useful. This is why, in the context
of the doctrinal and canonical solution of reconciliation, we suggest to
the Holy Father that he name a bishop chosen from among the members of the
Society, presented by Archbishop Lefebvre. In consequence of the principle
indicated above (5.1), this bishop as a rule is not the Superior General
of the Society.
But it seems opportune that he be a member of the Roman commission.

Of interest to me here is that this agreement was signed (due to be signed?) in Rome on May 5, 1988 -
This statement by Archbishop Lefebvre called “Can Obedience Oblige us to Disobey” is dated March 29,1988 -
and was also published as an article in the Angelus in July 1988.
March 29, 1988
… it seemed to me, in these circumstances, that it would not be without benefit to put before you again what I wrote on January 20, 1978, concerning certain objections which could be made as to our attitude with regard to the problems created by the present situation of the Church.
One of these questions was: ''How do you see obedience to the pope?" Here is the reply I gave ten years ago:

“Hence it is not inconceivable that there could be a duty of disobedience with regard to the pope.”

“… The years 1974, 1975 and 1976 leave us with the memory of this incredible clash between Econe and the Vatican, between the Pope and myself.”

           *"The result was the condemnation, the suspension               a divinis, wholly null and void **because the pope was                tyrannically abusing his authority in order to defend laws                contrary to the good of the Church and to the good of souls.***
           *These events are an historical application of                the principles concerning **the duty to disobey."***

 

[Justin_Swanton]

This at least I understand better that the less important things mentioned earlier. However, my point remains that they do not have to abandon tradition or embrace a secular mentality to rejoin the Church. I assure you Brother JR does not.

Yet your last point is hard. I can understand the fear that they might be influenced more by the Catholic Church if the were to operate as a Catholic organization. However, the risk to their spirituality should be worth the advantage. I mean, they are still individually in the Catholic Church. There does not seem to be an issue of influence. If they go into full schism or fully unite, I would think the danger of influence would be about the same. Of course, this is my opinion. According to you, it is not theirs and this is the fear they have.

I would only say that they should listen to Blessed John Paul. “Be not afraid.”

What is really needed are some distinctions. The SSPX is afraid of opening itself to the relativist and secular spirit that is, admittedly, having a field day among many mainstream Catholics. But what exactly is Rome asking for?

One thing is an acceptance of the OF Mass. This does ***not ***mean an acceptance of the abuses that have been concomitant with the OF Mass since its inception. All that is required is an endorsement of the OF text and rubrics as being - if fittingly celebrated - acceptable to a Catholic. This does not include altars facing the people as the OF missal itself does not require them. Since Rome has permitted Communion in the hand (although preferring Communion on the tongue) one cannot formally reject it. ***But ***this does not mean acceptance of a communicant who slouches up to the sanctuary, chewing gum, and takes the host as if it were a cream cracker.

The problem of course is that for many the OF Mass immediately conjures up an image of out-of-place music, sentimental hand-holding, noise, ministers in lay clothes running around the sanctuary, casual talking and irreverence. This is not what the OF Mass need be.

The specific objections to the OF text are not enough to reject the OF Mass per se. Offertory prayers that speak of ‘bread of life’ and ‘spiritual drink’ rather than the ‘Immaculate Victim’ as in the EF prayers. The EF offertory makes clearer Who is getting offered and why, nonetheless one cannot call the OF offertory heretical, or sacrilegious, or anything that would oblige a Catholic to stay away from it. Ditto for the other prayers in the OF missal.

The SSPX can formally endorse the OF Mass without subscribing to anything that would undermine its defence of reverence and orthodoxy in the liturgy. The fact that the EF prayers are doctrinally clearer is a point in its favour, but this does not make the OF unacceptable. It is possible to cohabit with it.