The Latest Public Statement of the SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter GloriaMaria
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomdstone said:
However, if an SSPX priest asked for faculties, while still remaining in the SSPX, I doubt that the local bishop would oblige.
Click to expand...
I guess it boils down to where the individual priest’s loyalties lie. To the Holy Church formed by Christ and headed by the successor of St Peter, or to a schismatic religious organisation formed in the 1970 by bishop who would not accept the authority of the Pope?
 
ProVobis said:
Or he could try the FSSP or the ICRSS.
Click to expand...
Maybe. The SSPX priests are suspended by Canon Law. Only Rome can lift that suspension. However, I’m thinking that the major superior of either of those institutes could serve as the link between the priest and Rome.
 
JReducation said:
Maybe. The SSPX priests are suspended by Canon Law. Only Rome can lift that suspension. However, I’m thinking that the major superior of either of those institutes could serve as the link between the priest and Rome.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I wonder how many Bishops would “welcome” former SSPX Priests into their Dioceses and under what conditions?
 
Mike30 said:
Interesting. I wonder how many Bishops would “welcome” former SSPX Priests into their Dioceses and under what conditions?
Click to expand...
Before we even look at that, it’s important to know how Canon Law applies here. Normally, if you belong to an institute, be it a religious community or a society of apostolic life, you cannot separate yourself from the institute to join a diocese without permission from Rome. You can do it the other way around. You can leave the diocese to join an institute. That permission is given in Canon Law for every diocesan priest.

However, since the SSPX was suppressed and since they are not canonically united to the Church, there is a legal question. Aside from the lifting of the suspension, which Canon Law says belongs to Rome or whomever Rome delegates, there is the issue of the bond to the SSPX.

The question is does the Church recognize that bond? If so, is the bond treated like that of other societies of apostolic life?

For example, you can’t leave the Vincentians to join a diocese without permission from Rome, even though Vincentians are secular priests, not religious.
 
JReducation said:
The question is does the Church recognize that bond? If so, is the bond treated like that of other societies of apostolic life?
Click to expand...
I would have thought not, since the SSPX has no canonical status whatsoever within the Catholic Church, and has no legitimate ministry. An illegitimate, schismatic society, operating without any canonical status could hardly be regarded as having bonds that bind a Catholic priest like regular societies with canonical status. Surely walking out on such a society would be viewed as an individual priest seeing sense and following the guidance of the Holy Spirit?
 
Brendan_64 said:
… Surely walking out on such a society would be viewed as an individual priest seeing sense and following the guidance of the Holy Spirit?
Click to expand...
I’m sure it is viewed as such. What else but grace leads out of such a complex situation.

The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei is a commission of the Catholic Church established by Pope John Paul II’s motu proprio Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988 for the care of those former followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who broke with him as a result of his consecration of four priests of his Society of St. Pius X as bishops on 30 June 1988, an act that the Holy See deemed illicit and schismatic.[1] It has the additional tasks of trying to return to full communion with the Holy See those traditionalist Catholics who are in a state of separation, of whom the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) is foremost, and of helping to satisfy just aspirations of people unconnected with these groups who want to keep alive the pre-1970 Roman Rite liturgy.
oen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Commission_Ecclesia_Dei

I often what degree of help there was for those who “wanted to keep alive” the Tridentine Mass in the years 1970 - 1988 - before these consecrations precipitated the Pope founding the Ecclesia Dei Commission?

Were there any ‘approved’ Latin Mass centres in the world, not connected to the SSPX? I know there were independent priests who continued to offer the TLM to small groups of laity.

I believe that in England both masses continued with no disruptions…
 
Dee_S said:
I believe that in England both masses continued with no disruptions…
Click to expand...
If you’re referring to the Agatha Christie Indult, I don’t think it was allowed to be that widespread. And it wasn’t the 62 Missal either.
 
ProVobis said:
If you’re referring to the Agatha Christie Indult, I don’t think it was allowed to be that widespread. And it wasn’t the 62 Missal either.
Click to expand...
:Dthanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. Well, you live and learn. I had never heard of it before, so took a quick look at what wiki had to offer and came up with this.

The “Agatha Christie indult” is a nickname applied to the permission granted in 1971 by Pope Paul VI for the use of the Tridentine Mass in England and Wales. “Indult” is a term from Catholic canon law referring to a permission to do something that would otherwise be forbidden.

Following the introduction of the Mass of Paul VI to replace the former rite in 1969-70, a petition was sent to the Pope asking that the Tridentine rite be permitted to continue for those who wished in England and Wales. The petition noted the exceptional artistic and cultural heritage of the Tridentine liturgy, and was signed by many prominent non-Catholic figures in British society, including Agatha Christie, Vladimir Ashkenazy, Kenneth Clark, Robert Graves, F. R. Leavis, Cecil Day-Lewis, Nancy Mitford, Iris Murdoch, Yehudi Menuhin, Joan Sutherland and two Anglican Bishops, those of Exeter and Ripon.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_Christie_indult#cite_note-1

John Cardinal Heenan approached Pope Paul VI and asked that use of the Tridentine Mass be permitted. On 5 November 1971, the Pope granted the request. Between then and the granting of the worldwide “universal indult” in 1984, the bishops of England and Wales were authorized to grant permission for the occasional celebration of Mass in the old form, with the modifications introduced in 1965 and 1967.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_Christie_indult#cite_note-2

English Roman Catholics had a particular attachment*citation needed*] to the Tridentine Mass, as the Mass which had been celebrated by the English martyrs of the Reformation and by priests in the years in which Catholicism had been subjected to sometimes severe persecution. The indult acquired its nickname by virtue of a story told about the Pope’s acceptance of the petition:
The story is that Pope Paul read through the letter in silence then suddenly exclaimed, “Ah, Agatha Christie!” and then signed it. Though not a Catholic at the time, Christie rejected the 20th century rite as the desecration of the historic church that it was. The indult was granted in 1971. Ever since it has been known informally as “the Agatha Christie indult”.[3]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_Christie_indult

🍿 I’m a big Agatha Christie fan…so it’s fun to know this
 
Dee_S said:
I’m sure it is viewed as such. What else but grace leads out of such a complex situation.

The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei is a commission of the Catholic Church established by Pope John Paul II’s motu proprio Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988 for the care of those former followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who broke with him as a result of his consecration of four priests of his Society of St. Pius X as bishops on 30 June 1988, an act that the Holy See deemed illicit and schismatic.[1] It has the additional tasks of trying to return to full communion with the Holy See those traditionalist Catholics who are in a state of separation, of whom the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) is foremost, and of helping to satisfy just aspirations of people unconnected with these groups who want to keep alive the pre-1970 Roman Rite liturgy.
oen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Commission_Ecclesia_Dei

**I often what degree of help there was for those who “wanted to keep alive” the Tridentine Mass in the years 1970 - 1988 **- before these consecrations precipitated the Pope founding the Ecclesia Dei Commission?

Were there any ‘approved’ Latin Mass centres in the world, not connected to the SSPX? I know there were independent priests who continued to offer the TLM to small groups of laity.

I believe that in England both masses continued with no disruptions…
Click to expand...
There was no help at all from about 1970, actually about 1965 until 1984 when the Indult was issued. Even then, the hostility on the part of many Bishops and Priests to allowing it was palpitable.

About the only places where you were able to find an Extraordinary Form Mass in those years was if you lived in an area with an elderly Priest who was excused from learning the Ordinary Form AND if there were no other Priests in that particular Diocese that knew how to celebrate the Ordinary Form. A few parishes did adopt both forms but most did not. As far as a group that retained the Extraordinary Form, at least in principle, the only one I know of is the Norbertines Order. England had something called the Agatha Christie indult which allowed periodic celebrations of the Extraordinary Form at certain prescribed locations. It was by no means widespread. Almost all of the socities that we have today came about in the years following the issuance of the indult by Pope John Paul II in 1984. They were not around prior to 1984. .

In fact far from a wide and generous application as requested in the indult, some Bishops threw up obstructions which almost completely would negate the ability of the faithful to attend one. In one fairly famous scenario, the Archbishop stated that the Old mass as he called it, did not in any way serve the spiritual; needs of his flock or of anyone else for that matter, but in obedience he would graciously one Extraordinary Form Mass to be celebrated in the Arcdiocese per month under the following restrictions:

It could not be celebrated at any Archdiocesan Church, Chapel or meeting hall.
It could not be celebrated on a Sunday.
The name of the place for the celebration had to be submitted to the Archdioces by the Wednesday preceeding the celebration, and if the location was not approved, the Mass could not be celebrated.
The Mass could not be held in the same place for any two consecutive weeks

AND to show true generosity I suppose, he decreed that

Only those who had been alive,of adult age and practicing Catholics in 1964, could attend the Mass. Everyone else was prohibited from attending.👍

So in short from 1970 until 1984, it was virtually non-existant. After the indult, things got better in some areas, but still by no means was it an easy task to find one except for a few certain areas.

There was a lot and I mean a lot of hostility to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in those days.
 
Mike30 said:
There was a lot and I mean a lot of hostility to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in those days.
Click to expand...
This is what I don’t understnad. Why the hostility to the Latin Mass, but the embracing of the clown Mass?
 
Mike30 said:
There was no help at all from about 1970, actually about 1965 until 1984 when the Indult was issued. Even then, the hostility on the part of many Bishops and Priests to allowing it was palpitable.

About the only places where you were able to find an Extraordinary Form Mass in those years was if you lived in an area with an elderly Priest who was excused from learning the Ordinary Form AND if there were no other Priests in that particular Diocese that knew how to celebrate the Ordinary Form. A few parishes did adopt both forms but most did not. As far as a group that retained the Extraordinary Form, at least in principle, the only one I know of is the Norbertines Order. England had something called the Agatha Christie indult which allowed periodic celebrations of the Extraordinary Form at certain prescribed locations. It was by no means widespread. Almost all of the socities that we have today came about in the years following the issuance of the indult by Pope John Paul II in 1984. They were not around prior to 1984. .

In fact far from a wide and generous application as requested in the indult, some Bishops threw up obstructions which almost completely would negate the ability of the faithful to attend one. In one fairly famous scenario, the Archbishop stated that the Old mass as he called it, did not in any way serve the spiritual; needs of his flock or of anyone else for that matter, but in obedience he would graciously one Extraordinary Form Mass to be celebrated in the Arcdiocese per month under the following restrictions:

It could not be celebrated at any Archdiocesan Church, Chapel or meeting hall.
It could not be celebrated on a Sunday.
The name of the place for the celebration had to be submitted to the Archdioces by the Wednesday preceeding the celebration, and if the location was not approved, the Mass could not be celebrated.
The Mass could not be held in the same place for any two consecutive weeks

AND to show true generosity I suppose, he decreed that

Only those who had been alive,of adult age and practicing Catholics in 1964, could attend the Mass. Everyone else was prohibited from attending.👍

So in short from 1970 until 1984, it was virtually non-existant. After the indult, things got better in some areas, but still by no means was it an easy task to find one except for a few certain areas.

There was a lot and I mean a lot of hostility to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in those days.
Click to expand...
Goodness, this quite an indictment. I have no experience of my own to agree or disagree with it. Is this something that you yourself experienced firsthand?
 
Tomdstone said:
This is what I don’t understnad. Why the hostility to the Latin Mass, but the embracing of the clown Mass?
Click to expand...
Oh, puhleeze - examples, please, of the “clown Mass” being embraced by anybody.
 
pnewton said:
Who has been hostile to the Latin Mass? Who has embraced a “clown” Mass?
Click to expand...
:(The “who” being spoken about is those many Bishops in various places throughout the world, that put up a huge opposition to the Latin Mass being retained in any way, shape or form in their dioceses, and which hostility and suppression continues to this day.

Of recent memory is ‘their’ reaction to SP. It became a “dead letter” in many a diocese where the Bishop’s thinking was not in line with that of the Church, nor was his spirit in line with that of the Holy Father.

In my country the Archbishop was extremely hostile to the Latin Mass, and refused to allow it to be celebrated anywhere of immediate effect. Petitions were raised numbering thousands of parishioners who requested even a small concession - that was totally denied. Any subsequent ones went the same way - and so it has stayed for the past 40 odd years!

At the time, a few older priests openly resisted his bias and were suspended. From these small beginnings a traditional community grew in a few major cities. They were persecuted from the pulpit and in the press for many years.

Unfortunately, SP requires that only a “stable group” or “persons” that are members of a regular parish, may request the Latin Mass - so where does it leave those attending SSPX or other if they have not been given “a bridge” to cross??
 
felsguy said:
Goodness, this quite an indictment. I have no experience of my own to agree or disagree with it. Is this something that you yourself experienced firsthand?
Click to expand...
Yes actually, I did. I was a resident in the aforementioned Archdiocese and along with about 20 othres were involved in trying to negotiate with the Archdiocese to allow celebrations of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. In that regard we had several meetings with the Archbisop as well as the Auxiliary Bishop and several diocesan officers.

It was not an overall pleasant experience to be sure…
 
Dated May 8,2013 the SSPX released an article named - “Will Pope Francis be able to rebuild the Church?”. It abounds with criticizm and insinuation and is to my mind, on the nasty side. (it makes me wonder if this thread deserves such an update - it is alarming the liberties taken to ‘bash’ the Holy Father )
“…may we suggest to our readers some thoughts about his ecclesiastical career and how we might obtain insights into his pontificate? If his work at the head of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires (Argentina) is any indication of the future, it is difficult, perhaps even presumptuous, to be hopeful. Very conscious of the dilapidated state of his clergy, he was unable to improve vocations, seminary training, or continuing formation. Never has the seminary of Buenos Aires had as few seminarians as today.[2] The liturgies presided over by the “Cardinal of the Poor” have been poor in tradition, dignity, and sacrality. With Pope Francis we appear to be on the brink of a return to the bizarre, secular, and even sacrilegious liturgies of Paul VI’s and John Paul II’s pontificates, complete with raucous singing, dancing, and lack of care for the consecrated sacred species. Liturgies[3] as Pope Francis was accustomed to perform as cardinal would be a far cry from Benedict XVI’s efforts to restore some of the dignity worthy of the worship of God.[4]”
 
That is so sad. We must continue to pray for the SSPX to reconcile with the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top