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.
Pork_Roll said:
This is your opinion. Show evidence that any pope held to this. You say that St. Francis blew a horn which led to the deaths of Christian crusaders. Can you give us evidence that St. Francis sided with the Muslims over Christians by blowing a horn which alerted them that Christians were going to attack?

Maybe he did but it sounds very suspicious.Admittedly there were catholics who did such things but it wasn’t authorized by the church. The sacking of Constantinople comes to mind. But the Muslims if you remember ultimately took the Holy Land back from the crusaders. Islam is an enemy of the church whether you want to admit it or not. The middle east is the original home of Christianity. Jesus didn’t say he was going to bring peace, but division.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with Francis of Assisi. He never saw any man as his enemy. Nor did he see the Muslims as the enemies of the Church.

What we’re talking about here is not what the popes believed about Islam and the Europeans, but what Francis believed about Islam and the Europeans.

What he believed has been handed down to the Franciscans for centuries through the writings of the early friars, letters and journals that are archived at the Franciscan Mother House in Assisi.

You have to remember that this man did not see the Church and the world as you and I do. This man was a mystic and a teacher. He could care less about diplomacy, politics, and who governed what. He was concerned with reaching the Father by following the footsteps of Christ as the Holy Spirit guided him. He paid little attention to what others were thinking about these issues. As long as he did not violate Church law, he was happy.

The proof of the pudding is that Pope Gregory IX accepted Francis’ actions and his treaty with the Sultan and established the Custody of the Holy Land, which he put under the administration of the Observant Franciscans to this day. He gave them one command, to protect the Christian sites, serve the Christians, refrain from trying to convert the Muslims and Jews, and preach the Gospel by their humility, life of prayer and brotherhood to believers and non believers. No pope has ever retracted this mandate to this day. The Custody of the Holy Land is still in existence and still has a very special ministry, distinct from any other jurisdiction in the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂

custodia.org/default.asp?id=307
 
petermarr said:
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. http://www.datasea.info/avatar4.jpg;)
Click to expand...
I was thinking about that the other day, because the Holy Father said that he would be making no decisions on the resignation letter until after Easter. Cardinal Levada’s 75th birthday has come and gone. The Cardinal and the Pope may be thinking that there are things on the table that are better finished by him, than bringing in a new person in the middle of a process.

As I’ve said many times, while the Holy Father calls the final shot. However, at the end of the day, the popes always go with the conclusions of the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Faith. This is a very special office in the Holy See. It is well staffed by the brightest minds in the Church and has resources outside of the Vatican. If they need further analysis on something, they send their cases out to the universities around the world, including our own Catholic University of America, Dominican House of Studies and the Josephinum Pontifical College, three of the Church’s best schools of theology in the world.

As the old saying goes, “Two heads are better than one.” The pope is one theologian and this is not a matter of proclaiming a dogma. This is a matter of helping anotther group understand doctrine the way that the Holy See understands it. So why not let more heads guide you? This is what popes do today. But Cardinal Levada has been leading this project and in contact with all of these people. The Holy Father does not even know who they are. He gets a resume from the Holy Office.

My guess is that the idea of giving Bishop Felay another month to restate his position, probably comes from the Holy Father. He really wants to bring the SSPX home, but the conclusion that the SSPX response is unacceptable is from Cardinal Levada and the Holy Father probably added that one piece. I say this, because there is a change in style between that sentence and the rest of the message.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
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?
Click to expand...
Br. JR, there’s always the possibility of setting up another order/fraternity for the priests, similar to the FSSP, even if none of the bishops are on board, if you will. Just saying.
 
I really wish it was called something else!😦 Pius X is the name of my High School!
 
ProVobis said:
Br. JR, there’s always the possibility of setting up another order/fraternity for the priests, similar to the FSSP, even if none of the bishops are on board, if you will. Just saying.
Click to expand...
If the bishops decide to walk, their men don’t have to go with them. They can come into full communion by doing one of several things.
  1. Entering the FSSP.
  2. Requesting the erection of another society of apostolic life, like the FSSP.
  3. Each one is free to ask for admission to any diocese in the world.
  4. Each one is free to ask for admission to any religious community in the world.
If Cardinal Levada were to declare a schism (which I pray will not happen), the faithful (including the clergy, religious and laity), may be told that they have to step back from the SSPX. My guess is that they won’t just say, “Goodbye and by the way, you can’t come back.”

The East were welcome back and many of them came back and others didn’t.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
If the bishops decide to walk, their men don’t have to go with them. They can come into full communion by doing one of several things.
  1. Entering the FSSP.
  2. Requesting the erection of another society of apostolic life, like the FSSP.
  3. Each one is free to ask for admission to any diocese in the world.
  4. Each one is free to ask for admission to any religious community in the world.
If Cardinal Levada were to declare a schism (which I pray will not happen), the faithful (including the clergy, religious and laity), may be told that they have to step back from the SSPX. My guess is that they won’t just say, “Goodbye and by the way, you can’t come back.”

The East were welcome back and many of them came back and others didn’t.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Would dioceses consider their priestly formation sufficient? Their seminaries or seminary isn’t monitored by Church authorities I would imagine. Would they need additional education?
 
Melchior said:
From Matthew 16:18 of course
Click to expand...
This verse says nothing about consecrating bishops. Since Christ already appointed the other apostles, it is unclear how the citation even applies. It also seems rather contrary to the idea behind Unius Reintegratio.
I’m interested to know your take on the rest of my previous post.
Click to expand...
At the risk of oversimplification, let me restate the basic premise of your previous post this way: Vatican 2 sought to apply mendicant and Benedictine ecumenism to the wider Church.

If I correctly grasped the jist of your post, I am sorry to say that I was unconvinced Vatican 2 intended to do that. Perhaps an argument could be made that some similarities exist between the work of the Franciscans in Bethlehem and Jerusalem and modern ecumenism. However, Franciscan practice in Muslim lands rather tries to make the best of a bad situation than serve as the pattern for global evangelisation. Also, just because there may be a parallel somewhere in church history does mean that it was the “reason” behing Humanae Dignitatis.

Therefore, in order to determine whether the SSPX are heading to schism,(and answer the question that heads this thread) it would seem important to know whether the SSPX is correct when it states that the current teaching on ecumenism is contrary to the previous teaching on ecumenism.
 
ringil said:
Would dioceses consider their priestly formation sufficient? Their seminaries or seminary isn’t monitored by Church authorities I would imagine. Would they need additional education?
Click to expand...
That depends on the requirements of the diocese. Each diocese sets its own standards. However, most diocese are very flexible, because they often get men who are secularizing, that is, leaving the religious life to become secular. They remain priests and join a diocese. The diocese takes the education they bring. They also have priests that transfer from one diocese to another.

If they chose to enter a religious community, that’s a whole other situation. They would go back to square one and have to go through 6 to 10 years of formation. It takes a minimum of 6 years to become a consecrated religious and no longer than 10. Canon Law is very explicit about that.

They would have to go through:

aspirancy
candidacy
postulancy
novitiate
juniorate’
perpetual vows

During that time, they can celebrate the sacraments. The priesthood has nothing to do with the consecrated life, because priests are not consecrated men. They are secular unless they join a religious community, hence the term “religious” from consecration.

They can celebrate the sacraments, but they have to live in the houses of formation until they complete their theological and spiritual formation for the particular community.

In my community, when a priest joins us, we let him go out to help in a parish on weekends, except during the canonical year (novitiate). During that year he may never set foot outside of the house for any reason other than go to the ER. Novices must remain 366 days in the novitiate house and the novitiate house must be a canonically erect novitiate. You can’t just pick a random house. For a very good reason, the novitiate may be cut short to 336 days. But the Holy See must approve.

If an SSPX priest joins a religious community and either he or the community decide that it’s not a good fit, then he has to find another place to go, before he leaves the community. He can’t just leave. He has to have a diocese or another institute that will receive him. The process of probation begins again.

When a priest moves into either a religious community, society of apostolic life or a dioceses that is not the original one where he was ordained, there is a period of probation. With religious is no less than 6 and no more than 10 years. With most dioceses is no more than five years and no less than one year. I don’t know what it is with societies of apostolic life. Probation is not to be confused with formation. His formation as a priest is over. This is about seeing if it’s a good fit.

He begins formation again, only if he enters a religious community, because the priests of the SSPX and other secular priests do not have religious formation. It’s not part of their program of studies. An SSPX priest probably knows less about Franciscan theology than I know about the man on the moon. There is no need for them to teach him such theology. The same is true about secular priests in our dioceses. They know very little about the religious life and about Christian Spirituality.

Secular priests are not required to study Christian Spirituality and Spiritual Theology. Much less the rule, history, philosophy, writings, ministry, pastoral care, mission and vision, sacraments, canon law, ecclesiology and the spiritual masters. That’s a six-year program of studies. Usually, people extend it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Exsilivm said:
Therefore, in order to determine whether the SSPX are heading to schism,(and answer the question that heads this thread) it would seem important to know whether the SSPX is correct when it states that the current teaching on ecumenism is contrary to the previous teaching on ecumenism.
Click to expand...
Schism is not a matter of orthodoxy or heterodoxy. It is a question of relationship to the Chair of Peter.
 
Exsilivm said:
This verse says nothing about consecrating bishops. Since Christ already appointed the other apostles, it is unclear how the citation even applies. It also seems rather contrary to the idea behind Unius Reintegratio.

At the risk of oversimplification, let me restate the basic premise of your previous post this way: Vatican 2 sought to apply mendicant and Benedictine ecumenism to the wider Church.

If I correctly grasped the jist of your post, I am sorry to say that I was unconvinced Vatican 2 intended to do that. Perhaps an argument could be made that some similarities exist between the work of the Franciscans in Bethlehem and Jerusalem and modern ecumenism. However, Franciscan practice in Muslim lands rather tries to make the best of a bad situation than serve as the pattern for global evangelisation. Also, just because there may be a parallel somewhere in church history does mean that it was the “reason” behing Humanae Dignitatis.

Therefore, in order to determine whether the SSPX are heading to schism,(and answer the question that heads this thread) it would seem important to know whether the SSPX is correct when it states that the current teaching on ecumenism is contrary to the previous teaching on ecumenism.
Click to expand...
Let me try to help here. The defining point of whether the SSPX is or is not in schism is not the definition and application of ecumenism. It’s the conclusion of Cardinal Levada and the signature of Pope Benedict.

If (let’s pray that Bishop Felay gives Rome what it wants) . . . if he does not and Rome says that the SSPX is in schism, then it is. There are no opinions that matter here. Once the Pope signs that decree, it’s over. There is only one thing to do. It would be what happened with the East. The laity and clergy who wanted to remain in communion with Rome pulled back and the others kept going to become the current Orthodox Church.

That does not mean that a future reconciliation is impossible. It simply means that at this time, the Holy Father has declared that the SSPX is no longer Catholic. However, let’s not cross that bridge yet. We have until April 15 to see what Bishop Felay does. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Even after that, we then have to see what Cardinal Levada recommends. If Bishop Felay does not come full circle, but at least bends 5 degrees, there is a glimmer of hope there. If he takes the attitude that the Vatican must convert to the SSPX, then his boat is sunk. That cannot happen. The Vatican cannot give in to any institute that is subordinate to it. The tail does not wag the dog. The SSPX was erected by the Church. The Church was not erected by the SSPX. It was not erected to dictate to the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
pnewton said:
Schism is not a matter of orthodoxy or heterodoxy. It is a question of relationship to the Chair of Peter.
Click to expand...
We will have to agree to disagree. It is impossible to see how someone can be completely correct regarding orthodoxy, yet out of communion with the pope. If, of course, the pope is seen as the guarantor of orthodoxy.
 
JReducation said:
The Vatican cannot give in to any institute that is subordinate to it.
Click to expand...
From the Catholic perspective, this would be the entire universe of institutes? Or are we using the term “institute” in a more technical sense?
 
Exsilivm said:
We will have to agree to disagree. It is impossible to see how someone can be completely correct regarding orthodoxy, yet out of communion with the pope. If, of course, the pope is seen as the guarantor of orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
The Holy See says that the SSPX is not doctrinally correct in all of its positions. That’s enough for the Church. That’s all that we need to know. The pope does not have to prove himself to us. This is not a democracy. As long as he is the legitimate successor of Peter, he decides what is necessary for communion. There is more to it than being correct on dogma. Cardinal Levada has told them more than once. The Pope wants them to think with the Church, meaning with the Church from day one to this day.
Exsilivm said:
From the Catholic perspective, this would be the entire universe of institutes? Or are we using the term “institute” in a more technical sense?
Click to expand...
Institute has to be understood the way that it is used in Catholic tradition. The term describes:

Religious Orders
Secular Orders
Religious Congregations
Public Associations of the Faithful
Societies of Apostolic Life
Secular Institutes of Consecrated Men or Women

The SSPX falls under societies of Apostolic Life. None of the above named institutes can dictate to, correct, direct, or make demands on the Holy See or the Pope himself. They give up that freedom when the institute is erected. The SSPX was erected as an institute of Pontifical Right. That made the Pope its highest ranking superior. He outranks the superior general.

The SSPX is not and never was a diocesan institute, subordinate to a diocesan bishop. Therefore, it would be contrary to tradition and logic for the Apostolic See to submit to what is legitimately and legally subordinate to it. That which is subordinate has to come into complete cooperation with that which is juridically above it. That’s what the Civil War was about. The Federal Government does not submit to the states. Its the other way around.

This is the case with institutes of Pontifical Right. The Pontiff does not submit to them. We submit to him. When we say that we will not submit for whatever reason, that in itself is a doctrinal problem. Doctrine says that we must submit. The Council of Trent said that Pontifical Right is a right that is accorded to Peter. Institutes of Pontifical Right have certain protections, but also certain doctrinal obligations to the pope.

There can be room for dialogue, but only on those points that the authority wants to dialogue and the conclusions must be only those that authority agrees to. If there is a dialogue, it’s over when authority agrees with the conclusions or when authority says, “This conversation is over.”

Every institute must submit to these rules. The SSPX cannot be the exception. There is only one exception to these rules. The Jesuits. They were founded as an exception to the rules. It was the intent of the founder and the pope who approved their erection that they be very autonomous. That was not the case with the SSPX. They’re not the Jesuits.

To get that exception, the Ignatius had to agree to bind the Jesuits by the same vows as the monks and mendicants, even though they are neither monks nor friars. They have to make solemn vows or they lose their exceptions.

The SSPX is secular. It is not entitled to the exceptions that come with solemn vows. We go back to the same reality. The Holy See cannot submit to an institute that is subordinate to itself.

If does not do that for any other institute of any kind. There is the doctrinal rift. The SSPX is placing itself in a position where it cannot be, by virtue of the doctrines that define the relationship between institutes the the Apostolic See. It’s placing itself as the equal to the Apostolic See, not as subordinate. Doctrinally, the Apostolic See has no equal in the Catholic Church. When it tries to dictate and to correct the Apostolic See, it is making itself its equal. There is a problem.

It’s in everyone’s best interest if they bend at least a few degrees.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Exsilivm said:
We will have to agree to disagree. It is impossible to see how someone can be completely correct regarding orthodoxy, yet out of communion with the pope. If, of course, the pope is seen as the guarantor of orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
The pope is more than the guarantor of orthodoxy. He is also the Vicar or Christ, making him the earthly ruler. He can and does mandate that all ordinations of bishops have to have his approval. He can withdraw from communion and declare formal schism for a violation of this procedure should he desire. Blessed John Paul did so for individuals already. Groups can experience the same punishment.
 
Dirt said:
If the SSPX are declared to be in schism, may Almighty God have Mercy on us all.
Click to expand...
:confused: Few of us here will be affected by this except in the sense of the remote connectedness of all Christians.
 
The pope is the supreme legislator. If he demands that you think with the Church and he feels that you’re not doing so, then he can summarily and unilaterally rule against you and declare you to be in schism.

There is more to it than orthodoxy. There is the issue of subordination. Institutes must submit to the authority of the pope. They get the right to exist from his authority and from his office. Once he ceases to recognize them as Catholic, they cease to exist…

Let’s leave the SSPX alone. Let’s take the Salesians. They are a religious congregation of Pontifical Right. The Pontiff is their highest superior. He cannot submit to them, they must submit to him.

Once they cease to submit to him, they have denied him what is his by right, which is their governance. This is where you have a doctrinal rift. Doctrine tells us that the pope is legislator as well as protector of Orthodoxy.

If after trying very hard to get them to submit to his authority, which mans giving him the power over them, which is rightfully his, they fail to accept this authority, then he can strip them of the name Catholic.

Once the name Catholic is taken from you, you’re outside of the Church. That’s a schism.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
pnewton said:
:confused: Few of us here will be affected by this except in the sense of the remote connectedness of all Christians.
Click to expand...
That depends. Any layman who continues to worship in a schismatic Church is in schism, unless he meets certain conditions in Canon Law that allows a Catholic to attend mass and receive Holy Communion in another Apostolic Church. Those rules are very specific.

It would affect our communion with each other, but it would also be more than four bishops and a few priests. There are layman who are willing to be in schism rather than bend to the will of the Holy Father. THAT . . . is very scary.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
The Holy See says that the SSPX is not doctrinally correct in all of its positions. That’s enough for the Church. That’s all that we need to know. The pope does not have to prove himself to us. This is not a democracy. As long as he is the legitimate successor of Peter, he decides what is necessary for communion. There is more to it than being correct on dogma. Cardinal Levada has told them more than once. The Pope wants them to think with the Church, meaning with the Church from day one to this day.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your helpful clarification regarding “institutes.” I had a feeling there was a more technical sense than I first read into the word.

Reading your post, and highlighting this part just for any other reader’s benefit, the question under consideration here reminds me a lot about similar questions that have arisen regarding the Orthodox Churches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top