Vatican on Society of St. Pius X: Position Insufficient to Restore Full Unity With Church at Present

  • Thread starter Thread starter sw85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay then…

Have any references of either St Francis or St Dominic not preaching
  1. That there is only one true faith
  2. That one needs to convert to that faith
I’m seriously curious.

The little that I have read of the Holy Fathers show them both to be very adamant about preaching the truth.
  1. They both said there is one true faith. They both did not deny, however, there was not elements of truth in other faiths. A modern day example; doing prayer ministry in front of abortion clinics. Why yes, we can pray with Jews and Muslims by offering up prayers to the God of Abraham. That time may not be, however, the best time to start talking about the faith. What we do after that prayer is covered in #2…
  2. They both advocated for conversions, yes. However they both went about it differently than others did at the time. Francis did it through actions. As you are aware, he tried the “you all need to convert nao!” method with the Sultan, and that did not work out so well (ie; being tossed from the palace and not being welcome back in the Sultan’s land). Humbled, he later came back and essentially said “lets try this again. I’ll work with your poorest subjects, we won’t actively try to convert them. However if they ask us any questions, we’re not about to not answer”. The Sultan was fine with this, and the rest was history. For Dominicans, we do preach. However we do so through charitable dialogue and study. Yes, there is zeal, butt he zeal is tempered by mercy.
In the abortion clinic example above, the Franciscan would shine with the love of Christ through their actions. After praying with a Jew, Muslim, or a Baptist, they may want to know more about Catholicism based on what they see. A Dominican would discuss it with them, and would likely begin with the common elements of truth and break things down into the nittigritties later on. Both Orders are for the saving of souls, but do so doing something we could call “the long game” and perennial investments.

Something that happened to me a few years ago was that I dated a non-denominational Christian girl. She had terrible experiences with Catholics, as did her parents and siblings. She was skeptical of me and my friends at first, and would occasionally ask questions. I would answer them as needed, explaining things and often giving reference materials and suggestions for reading. However I never really brought things up on my own; she would bring up her concerns in her own due time. All I could do is show her how real Catholics do things. I would ask her to read over some of my writing, I would tell her of stories with my time doing youth ministry. We continued this, and I remained charitable. She knew what I thought; Catholicism is #1. I didn’t need to hammer her in the head with it. She was church hopping, and I went with her each step of the way. I did not actively participate of course, however when they prayed to Jesus why would I not pray with her? She went to Mass with me every so often, and it was remarked at some point by myself that the uniformity of Catholic doctrine does have advantages.

She converted a few years ago, I was her sponsor. She’s joining me with the Lay Dominicans, which is pretty neat that my wife will be joining me on yet another lifelong journey.

I’d like to think the Holy Fathers would be proud of me for how I handled things there.

To bring this back into the OP, the Holy Fathers set the standard; affect change within the Church while obeying. Dominic set the standard for this by obeying when he was declined his own Rule. When Francis got HIS own Rule, Dominic didn’t complain - he continued to do what he did.
 
If the SSPX are declared to be in schism, may Almighty God have Mercy on us all.
 
  1. They both said there is one true faith. They both did not deny, however, there was not elements of truth in other faiths. A modern day example; doing prayer ministry in front of abortion clinics. Why yes, we can pray with Jews and Muslims by offering up prayers to the God of Abraham. That time may not be, however, the best time to start talking about the faith. What we do after that prayer is covered in #2…
  2. They both advocated for conversions, yes. However they both went about it differently than others did at the time. Francis did it through actions. As you are aware, he tried the “you all need to convert nao!” method with the Sultan, and that did not work out so well (ie; being tossed from the palace and not being welcome back in the Sultan’s land). Humbled, he later came back and essentially said “lets try this again. I’ll work with your poorest subjects, we won’t actively try to convert them. However if they ask us any questions, we’re not about to not answer”. The Sultan was fine with this, and the rest was history. For Dominicans, we do preach. However we do so through charitable dialogue and study. Yes, there is zeal, butt he zeal is tempered by mercy.
In the abortion clinic example above, the Franciscan would shine with the love of Christ through their actions. After praying with a Jew, Muslim, or a Baptist, they may want to know more about Catholicism based on what they see. A Dominican would discuss it with them, and would likely begin with the common elements of truth and break things down into the nittigritties later on. Both Orders are for the saving of souls, but do so doing something we could call “the long game” and perennial investments.

Something that happened to me a few years ago was that I dated a non-denominational Christian girl. She had terrible experiences with Catholics, as did her parents and siblings. She was skeptical of me and my friends at first, and would occasionally ask questions. I would answer them as needed, explaining things and often giving reference materials and suggestions for reading. However I never really brought things up on my own; she would bring up her concerns in her own due time. All I could do is show her how real Catholics do things. I would ask her to read over some of my writing, I would tell her of stories with my time doing youth ministry. We continued this, and I remained charitable. She knew what I thought; Catholicism is #1. I didn’t need to hammer her in the head with it. She was church hopping, and I went with her each step of the way. I did not actively participate of course, however when they prayed to Jesus why would I not pray with her? She went to Mass with me every so often, and it was remarked at some point by myself that the uniformity of Catholic doctrine does have advantages.

She converted a few years ago, I was her sponsor. She’s joining me with the Lay Dominicans, which is pretty neat that my wife will be joining me on yet another lifelong journey.

I’d like to think the Holy Fathers would be proud of me for how I handled things there.

To bring this back into the OP, the Holy Fathers set the standard; affect change within the Church while obeying. Dominic set the standard for this by obeying when he was declined his own Rule. When Francis got HIS own Rule, Dominic didn’t complain - he continued to do what he did.
Thanks for this thorough answer.

I think the false ecumenism that a lot of traditionalists have a problem with is the idea that all religions are fine as they all lead to God.

Speaking the truth and being charitable are not mutually exclusive. However, there must be faithfulness to truth.
 
Brother JR,

Can you remind me who is on the committee that is working on the SSPX situation along with Cardinal Levada? I know you have mentioned it before but it escapes me for some reason.

Thanks,
 
Now, let’s pray that Bishop Felay can get his confreres to budge a little. From our mouths to God’s ears.
I put it on our parish prayer list tonight before Stations of the Cross. With God’s grace, I hope this will turn around.
 
This is the actual communique or memo that was sent to clergy, religious and others around the world on March 16.

**
COMMUNIQUE CONCERNING THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X

Vatican City, 16 March 2012 (VIS) - Given below is the text of a communique relating to the Society of St. Pius X, released this morning by the Holy See.

"During the meeting of 14 September 2011 between Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and president of the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’, and Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, the latter was presented with a Doctrinal Preamble, accompanied by a Preliminary Note, as a fundamental basis for achieving full reconciliation with the Apostolic See. This defined certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church Magisterium and ‘sentire cum Ecclesia’.

"The response of the Society of St. Pius X to the aforesaid Doctrinal Preamble, which arrived in January 2012, was examined by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith before being submitted to the Holy Father for his judgement. Pursuant to the decision made by Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop Fellay was, in a letter delivered today, informed of the evaluation of his response. The letter states that the position he expressed is not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems which lie at the foundation of the rift between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X.

“At the end of today’s meeting, moved by concern to avoid an ecclesial rupture of painful and incalculable consequences, the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X was invited to clarify his position in order to be able to heal the existing rift, as is the desire of Pope Benedict XVI”.
**
I’m coming around to this view, though I’ve hoped and prayed for a resolution. Bp. Fellay’s remarks (to the extent that he’d rather be a sedevacantist schismatic than a subject of the Holy Father) are pretty radical.

A real shame, too. 😦
Did he really say that or is it a media spin?
I wish I could disagree with any of your analysis but I can’t. I think an added variable may be the reported retirement of Cardinal Levada. He may want to wrap this up before he is done rather than passing it off to the next person.

I pray that this will not go the wrong direction. Let us hope that clearer heads and pure hearts prevail.
I wonder if this is what his Holiness had in mind when he commented on Cardinal Levada’s letter of resignation. The Cardinal turned in his letter on his birthday. The Holy Father was asked about this and he gave a very ambiguous response. He said that there would be no response until after Easter. Maybe this was in progress and His Holiness did not want to accept the Cardinal’s resignation until at least this phase is complete. I’m just guessing here.
No big surprise there. Bishop Fellay just missed his opportunity to go down in history as a great leader who worked with a Pope to resolve a great schism. Oh well, onto the dust heap of history. Probably would eventually have even been a saint. But for ego.

(and please don’t tell me it’s not a schism, blah blah, start a new thread for that.)
I don’t think that he’s missed it. The Holy See has not slammed the door shut. It has invited him to try again.

My take is that he does not decide alone. I wonder, if he were like other superiors general, with complete authority, if the case would evolve differently. I’m thinking for example of Dominicans, Jesuits and Franciscans. We have dialogue and we try to use consensus as much as possible. However, the general superior reserves the right to take everything under advisement and to overrule everyone in the community, unless it’s a decision of the general chapter. This certainly was not taken to a general chapter of the SSPX. Someone who knows more about the infrastructure of the SSPX can clarify this for me. How much authority does Bishop Felay actually have?

Say these were Dominicans. At the end of the day, if the Dominican Master believed that the best thing for his order is to reconcile and discuss the differences later, he has the power and authority to make the decision for the entire order. Only a general chapter can overrule him. Without a chapter, his voice is final Everyone has to obey and get in line.
Brother JR,

Can you remind me who is on the committee that is working on the SSPX situation along with Cardinal Levada? I know you have mentioned it before but it escapes me for some reason.

Thanks,
I don’t know the names. I know that the committee of theologians for the Holy See were selected from among the Dominicans, Jesuits, Opus Dei (Holy Cross), and a Diocesan priest. I don’t remember if the names were ever made public.

Then there are others who serve as aides to committee. There are Capuchins, Dominicans, Jesuits, Opus Dei, Diocesan, Salesians, Conventuals and Carmelite.

The team is made up of the bright lights of the Church, with a support team of heavy duty canon lawyers and theologians.
 
A different take on the situation which has a very different tone.

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
The end of the page pretty much says the same thing as the message. The Holy Father is still extending the olive branch. However, it is very clear in the entire page of Rorate Caeli, that the Vatican is not offering to budge. What it’s doing is offering the SSPX another opportunity for it to bend a little more. I wonder, if they do bend a little, if that may stimulate Cardinal Levada to bend too.

Sometimes, if you become too rigid about your position, as the SSPX has done, you are met with rigidity. If you show a willingness to bend a little, you may get the same in return.

At the end of the day, the SSPX has more to lose than does the Vatican. The Vatican remains the Church. At best, the SSPX will remain suspended and at worse it will be declared to be in schism. I’m not sure what’s in between. I would not foresee an excommunication again. It didn’t work before, why would it work today?

In view of those two possibilities, neither of which is pleasant, I hope and pray that they will bend even if it’s 5 degrees. It’s a sign of some good will and they may get the Vatican to bend 10 degrees. I don’t know folks. Not understanding the power structure makes it difficult to say who dropped the ball at the SSPX end.

No matter what people may wish, it was always obvious that the Holy See plays the last card. No one can tell the Holy See what it needs to fix. I guess you can, but it’s not going to make it happen. The Holy See can disagree and it still remains in charge.

All we can do is pray. Where did they come up with this one month deadline? I had not heard about that before this evening.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Basically, people don’t read the directions and documents from the source. They just see bad examples and think that as the real deal. In short, their objection is caused by ignorance.

But SSPX is different, they argue based on the documents, and filling their ear with their own interpretation, too bad it is the wrong interpretation and slammed Rome as in error!

If, the above approach of Dominic and Francis is what is intended by the Church, basically the SSPX already throw away the opportunity to show the world (and those bad example doers) what the Church really want by ecumenism.
The SSPX lost the possibility of becoming the spearhead and example of “true ecumenism” as intended by the Church and by doing so provides correction to bad ecumenism.
But unfortunately, SSPX wish to blot out not only bad ecumenism but even the term ecumenism and its proper definition, and doing it under the banner of jihad against Rome.
 
The word “ecumenism” refers to seeking unity among Christians. It does not refer to relationships with other religions.
 
I’m assuming most here know about the story of Francis and the Sultan. If people aren’t, I’ll see if I can find Brother JR’s posts on the topic since he does a great job in telling the story.
Here is one version I found online:
In 1219, Francis went to the Holy Land to preach to the moslems. He was given a pass through the enemy lines, and spoke to the Sultan, Melek-al-Kamil. Francis proclaimed the Gospel to the Sultan, who replied that he had his own beliefs, and that moslems were as firmly convinced of the truth of Islam as Francis was of the truth of Christianity. Francis proposed that a fire be built, and that he and a moslem volunteer would walk side by side into the fire to show whose faith was stronger. The Sultan said he was not sure that a moslem volunteer could be found. Francis then offered to walk into the fire alone. The Sultan who was deeply impressed but remained unconverted. Francis proposed an armistice between the two warring sides, and drew up terms for one; the Sultan agreed, but, to Francis’s deep disappointment, the Christian leaders would not. Francis returned to Italy, but a permanent result was that the Franciscans were given custody of the Christian shrines then in moslem hands.
This story shows the commitment St Francis had to the conversion of Muslims. How do you think it is similar to the modern approach to inter-religious dialogue?
 
The word “ecumenism” refers to seeking unity among Christians. It does not refer to relationships with other religions.
You’re right. It looks like I was using it to mean unity among Christians AND inter-religious dialogue.
 
The word “ecumenism” refers to seeking unity among Christians. It does not refer to relationships with other religions.
Unity, as in, converting others to the One, True, Holy Religion. Just wanted to clarify that. 😉
 
Here is one version I found online:

This story shows the commitment St Francis had to the conversion of Muslims. How do you think it is similar to the modern approach to inter-religious dialogue?
Actually, there is much more to this story than is in your citation and there are things in the citation that never happened.

Francis never volunteered to walk through fire. Thomas of Celano inserted that into the hagiography. It was later denied by the four friars who traveled with Francis. But it was left in the hagiography, because Celano’s intention is not to give you an historical account, but to present to the reader Francis’ passion for the faith.

The next thing that is in this story that never happened is that Francis was expelled from the Sultan’s camp. On the contrary, Bonaventure was told that after praying together, the Sultan has a special bed set up for Francis in his tent, because he was so impressed with Francis’ holiness. He told Francis, “If all Christians were like you, I would convert today.” The Sultan did not convert, but he grew very fond of Francis and allowed Francis to be his guest for several weeks. He called him, Sufi, which is the Muslim term for Holy Man.

The final agreement between the Sultan and Francis was that the Catholic Church would not attempt to convert Jews or Muslims and in return the Sultan would agree to let the friars pass through his territory, which is today Egypt and Jordan. The friars would take residence in Jerusalem, where they would serve the Christians, protect the holy shrines of Christianity, and allow the Jews and Muslims liberty of movement without interference from the Church.

From there, Francis went on to Jerusalem with a type of passport that the Sultan gave him and with a gift that is still in the Basilica of St. Francis. It was a type of horn.

Unknown to the Christians, as Francis was returning from Jerusalem, he saw that the Christians were getting ready to launch an attack on the Muslims and catch them by surprise. Francis had heard the Muslim soldiers send warning signals using that horn. He took the horn, blew as he had heard. The Christians invaded and the Muslims won the battle.

On his return to Italy, he reported to Pope Gregory IX. Pope Gregory ratified the agreement. A few years later, Francis sent friars to Jerusalem and they have been there 800 yrs. They are not allowed to preach to Muslims or Jews or try to convert them. Their mandate is to serve the Christians, protect the shrines, protect the rights of the Muslims and Jews to worship without interference from the Christians. The pope later elevated the province of Jerusalem to the Custody of the Holy Land, placing it directly under his jurisdiction instead of the General Minister of the Order. To this day, the Franciscans run everything, but the Pope makes the rules for the Custody.

Francis introduce certain Muslims customs into our community that we still have to this day, because he was very impressed by the piety of the Muslims. He also brought back some Jewish customs that the Franciscans made their own.

800 years later, these customs have blended right in. One of the Jewish customs that he brought back was standing around the altar during the consecration instead of kneeling. He learned this from the Jews, because standing when the king enters the room is a gesture of honor. He also took out the kneelers from our chapels, because he learned to kneel on mats, which the Muslims do with their bumb resting on a very low bench about 8" from he floor. We still use those to this day. He put the tabernacle on the main altar after seeing the tabernacle in the Jewish temples in the place of prominence in the sanctuary. Tabernacles were in side chapels in Francis’ time. This was perfect for him, because his chapels were very small. Having learned that the Jewish custom is that the tabernacle be front and center, this resolved a problem for Frnacis.

To this day, the friars in Jerusalem work side by side with Muslims and Jews. Together they care for the poor, especially the victims of violence and terror in that region. Quite often they pray together for peace.

When Pope Benedict went to Jordan, he gave them permission to open the first joint Catholic-Muslim University in Jordan. I don’t know what city. The university will be owned by the Vatican, but the Jordanian government is subsidizing it and the friars will give them a faculty to teach Islam and Jordanian culture. The idea is not to proselytize, but to teach Muslims and Christians what each side believes and what their conflicts are. The hope is that as the younger generation understands, it will be able to dialogue. The promise is that growing up together since early childhood, these kids do not have preconceived prejudices against each other.

That’s the evolution of Franciscan ecumenism in the Middle East. The other religious order who was sent there for the same purpose was the Friars of the Most Holy Trinity or Trinitarians. They dress like Dominicans, but have a large red and blue cross on their scapular. When they went to Egypt, this was problematic. St. John de Matha, their founder, Told his friars to take the cross off their scapular and put it on only when they were in the Christian compounds. The Muslims agreed to allow the Trinitarians to enter the prisons and minister to the Christian Crusaders as a result of this trade off. The end result is that there are many Trinitarians who are former Muslims. Unfortunately, they can never return home, because it’s illegal for a Muslim to convert out of Islam.

Franciscans have a fair share of Jews, including yours truly, who were attracted by their love for Francis and their generosity. Never did they try to convert us. We came to them asking to know more, because they weer impressive.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I think the approach is applicable for both inter-religious dialogue and ecumenism among Christian.
 
Unknown to the Christians, as Francis was returning from Jerusalem, he saw that the Christians were getting ready to launch an attack on the Muslims and catch them by surprise. Francis had heard the Muslim soldiers send warning signals using that horn. He took the horn, blew as he had heard. The Christians invaded and the Muslims won the battle.
Is this true? That Francis sided with the Muslims? I find this hard to believe. But if the Christians were in the wrong, who knows.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top