Vatican II and its changes

[Saxum]

What do you mean?

 

[pnewton]

The SSPX priests are Catholics, as are those who attend their Mass. The association itself is not, at least not yet. The catholicity of the group is a matter of opinion.

 

[commenter]

What do you mean?

Some people say the individual priests in SSPX are Catholic, and so is the organization, as such. Other people say the individual priests in SSPX are Catholic, but that the organization itself is not a Catholic organization, however they define that.

That is what I meant by the distinction between the SSPX are Catholic, and the SSPX is Catholic.

I did not say either side is right or wrong, I just said there is disagreement, as evidenced by threads on CAF.

By the way, I have been informed that the situation in other countries as in Europe is different from the US.

 

[Saxum]

Ok now I understand. My spiritual director said something last week; he said that the ‘SSPX is a strange sort of schism - unprecedented.’ I guess he said the same thing as you. When it comes to the SSPX, nobody knows what’s going on. I think it’s time for Fellay to stop messing around and take the olive branch.

 

[commenter]

When it comes to the SSPX, nobody knows what’s going on. I think it’s time for Fellay to stop messing around and take the olive branch.

I have been informed that the situation in France, and on the continent, is different from in the US, for the SSPX and others interested in the TLM. So the raison d’etre for the independent organization in one country in 2017 may require a different response than in another country. We should all pray, regardless, for whatever God’s will may bring.

 

[StarMapp]

Nothing wrong with that. The point is that HE thought the task was his Divine assignment.

What I was getting at in having readers study this paragraph, is that if canon law recognizes the possibility of conscientious object(protection of the order) as a mitigating defense, then why not defer in charity to benefit of the doubt? If one were looking for examples of the epitome of this virtue, where else would one find it other than in the True Church.

 

[pnewton]

is that if canon law recognizes the possibility of conscientious object(protection of the order) as a mitigating defense, then why not defer in charity to benefit of the doubt?

I would rather not have an opinion. Why even have an opinion on whether he needs a defense. In this, I deferred to the St. John Paul’s judgment, and Pope Benedict’s lifting of the excommunication on the others living still in 2009. I mean, both of these knew him better than I do. They are the one’s who actually say who is in communion with them.

What this means beyond excommunication with the visible Church is something that belongs to God alone, and that is where charity demands we give the benefit of the doubt. The rest is rather a matter of historical facts.

 

[jcm2017]

Yes but the council is still a convenient pinata for people who don’t even know what’s in there. Honestly, we read the ingredients on a box of cereal, but…

 

[ProVobis]

The SSPX priests are Catholics, as are those who attend their Mass. The association itself is not, at least not yet. The catholicity of the group is a matter of opinion.

If it means anything the fraternity was legitimately formed. There have been many priests such as SSPV, CMRI, et al, including many “independents,” which were not. That’s probably why the SSPX is/are mentioned more than the others.

 

[pnewton]

That’s probably why the SSPX is/are mentioned more than the others.

I so look forward to the time when this is no longer an issue and they are reconciled, regularize, or whatever the proper term is meaning that there is no more hiccup in their get along.

 

[Melchior_1]

By no means am I against objections. Again, Francis and Dominic had objections. But, as you say, the “form” they used was proper. Please note as well that Francis and Dominic followed proper canonical protocol and obeyed the authority of the Pope.

Regarding the excommunication(s), there’s a few fronts to look at. One, the necessity portion. As I may have mentioned elsewhere, the Pope said there was no necessity. Bishop LeFebvre thought that there would be no further valid priests and no further valid Masses, and that Sacred Tradition would be destroyed. The Pope (and the Popes after) specifically said that those were not true; there would still be valid priests, there would still be valid Masses, and Sacred Tradition would remain. And of course, there’s no necessity clause for the Sacrament of Holy Orders, nor any for consecrating Bishops.

The part detailing being “bound in conscience” is pretty rich, considering how often those who support the SSPX have issues with others following their conscience. But sure, lets roll with that. The SSPX website that Bishop LeFebvre had to perform “a subjective mortal sin” to be valid, and they say that because he was “bound by conscience”, he didn’t sin. The primary issue here isn’t just that the same justification can be (and probably is) used by liberals for their own acts (although that’s certainly a big issue), the bigger thing is that the sin of disobedience by a Bishop towards the Pope alongside with the direct violation of Canon Law is likely an objective mortal sin. This isn’t a case of habitual sin or invincible ignorance or living in a certain time period or growing up in a harsh environment. This is a man who was a Bishop and knew exactly what he was doing, received multiple warnings by the one who had the authority to do so, and went ahead and did it anyway.

To summarize, what this boils down to is two things. The first is obedience. Within the consecrated religious, you are not bound by your solemn vow of obedience if your Superior will cause you to sin. In this case, the Pope promulgated a valid Missal, the Sacraments remained the Sacraments, and Canon Law was validly revised. There was plenty of change as it pertained to customs and practices, however those are subject to change by the one who has valid authority. There was no break from doctrine, zero. How doctrine was communicated was changed, but no deviations were present.

The second part is pretty simple. It’s the office of Kephas and who holds the Keys. Everything in the situation with the SSPX was done with the valid successor of Kephas exercising the office of Kephas… Canon Law rulings? He’s the judge. Suspension of priests? He’s the judge. Faculties removed? He’s the judge. None of these were abuses of power, these were valid actions by the one who has the final ruling when it comes to Canon Law.

 

[StarMapp]

Understood, Good point.

 

[commenter]

I so look forward to the time when this is no longer an issue and they are reconciled, regularize, or whatever the proper term is meaning that there is no more hiccup in their get along.

This reconciliation is not just a hypothetical. Each year, NOW, individual priests in the SSPX do reconcile, and regularize. Each year some SSPX attached families do join a parish under their bishop. They often attend a diocesan approved EF, and engage with diocesan ministries they find orthodox and helpful to their family, and put their gifts at service to the Church itself.

Some parishes exist already, that would not have existed otherwise except for people reconciling already (IRL, not in the hypothetical). Some people are engaging in diocesan prolife and religious liberty efforts, or evangelizing non Catholics into the Catholic Faith, already, that might not have happened if they had waited for the hypothetical.

 

[pnewton]

Thinking on your post, the SSPX and how this relates to the topic, I wonder if there will be a critical point at which that which remains will follow the steps of Bishop Williamson, or will enough will change within the society for all but a few to be part of this work you describe, or the society be given its own ministry and chain of obedience from the Pope.

In any case, I see that eventually the idea of “rigid” traditionalists will be determined by those able to embrace the virtue of obedience, hopefully made easier by their bishops or superiors, granting what the need the most, and not asking them to give more than they can.

 

[Dorothy]

Miguel,

Ask for our Blessed Mother’s intercession, and remember to pray for our enemies as our Lord exhorts us to.

Peace!

Dorothy

 

[commenter]

I wonder if there will be a critical point at which that which remains will follow the steps of Bishop Williamson, or will enough will change within the society for all but a few to be part of this work you describe, or the society be given its own ministry and chain of obedience from the Pope.

• The SSPX is right to focus on the Mass as crucial. So many of us have de emphasized the Mass.
• The SSPX is not exempt from influence by secular trends. There is an anti-religious authority movement in Western societies. There is also a powerful tendency to perpetuate organizations at any cost, whether it be religious, political, charitable, etc. The organization takes on a life of its own, apart from its original purpose.
• The situation varies from country to country. One CAF poster has described the situation in France as very different from the US. It also varies from decade to decade. In my US city the SSPX chapel was started 40 years ago when our diocese was very different. In 2017 the chapel justifies its continued existence because of abuses prevalent in the 1970s.
• Whether or not the Archbishop felt “subjectively” justified in his actions in the 1970s, or in 1988, is relevant only to his spiritual life. It should not be used to justify making or postponing any personal decisions in 2017.
• We all likely pray far too little regarding this topic. I should be as diligent in prayer as I am in planning posts to the internet.

 

[pnewton]

The SSPX is right to focus on the Mass as crucial. So many of us have de emphasized the Mass.

I have never seen this within the Catholic Church. How much more focus can one get than it is the source and summit of our faith? The mere existence and work put into Sacrosanctum concilium shows the emphasis that the Church does put on the Mass and its central importance in the life of the Church and the faithful.

What those outside the Church and those who depart from the faith due to sloth, greed, lust, or any other sin is a product of society, which both the Catholic Church and the SSPX must live in.

 

[commenter]

from me:
The SSPX is right to focus on the Mass as crucial. So many of us have de emphasized the Mass.

from other poster:
I have never seen this within the Catholic Church.

OK, let me re phrase this. Until recently, I have de emphasized the Mass.
I fail to prepare for it, run in at the last second. I fail to give it adequate attention.

 

[Saxum]

OK, let me re phrase this. Until recently, I have de emphasized the Mass.

I fail to prepare for it, run in at the last second. I fail to give it adequate attention.

I’ll go one further and say that many priests have neglected the Mass. They celebrate it in a sloppy manner. They make it up as they go along. They turn it into a “feel good” session. They don’t care about reverence. They don’t care about decent music. This is major problem because it trivialises the most important part of our Holy Faith.

 

[commenter]

I’ll go one further and say that many priests have neglected the Mass. They celebrate it in a sloppy manner. They make it up as they go along. They turn it into a “feel good” session. They don’t care about reverence. They don’t care about decent music. This is major problem because it trivialises the most important part of our Holy Faith.

In my diocese this was much more common a few decades ago than now, though yes, it still happens in a few cases. There was part of a generation that grew up under the Latin Mass, went to seminary right before or during Vatican II. With rare exceptions, most of those priests have retired or are close to it.