Vatican resumes talks with traditionalist SSPX [CWN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
commenter said:
Some SSPX persons respect him as a religious leader, or source of unity - as many Protestants do.
Click to expand...
What are “SSPX persons”? If you’re referring to priests, I believe they mention him as Papa Nostro (our Pope) in the Canon; that should be sufficient. Is it necessary to praise him at every opportunity around the clock to show how loyal they are?
Filling the pews here also confirms the priest to stay here, too, rather than considering the FSSP for instance. The attendees at our diocesan TLM Mass are actively cooperating in the larger effort for prolife and religious liberty. The attendees at the SSPX chapel are not.
Click to expand...
I believe they no longer consider it scandalous to attend Protestant services among other things. Why should it be different for FSSPX who are still Catholic?

And I disagree strongly about attendees at their chapels being not active in pro-life causes. Or other causes such as anti-Black Masses, for that matter.
 
TMC said:
You may want to ask that of the Church. I am merely reporting what Cardinal Muller has said.
Click to expand...
If you are interpreting this correctly then it would mark the first time in history that Catholics have been told they may attend a schismatic Church simply for love of the Form in which it is held. This would be earth shattering in terms of dogma.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
If you are interpreting this correctly then it would mark the first time in history that Catholics have been told they may attend a schismatic Church simply for love of the Form in which it is held. This would be earth shattering in terms of dogma.
Click to expand...
I understand there is no precedent for their current “irregularity,” if that means anything.
 
commenter said:
The consecration is valid. The whole process of defying the Church, sometimes drawing laity away from the ministry of their local diocese and bishop, sometimes encouraging suspicion towards the Pope, is extremely imprudent, at a minimum, not validly Catholic.
Click to expand...
It is a Catholic Mass, it is most certainly valid.
commenter said:
I would like to see that reference, in context. Not everything that is excusable is permissible, and not everything that is permissible is recommended.
Click to expand...
Could you point to anything in Canon Law that forbids any Catholic from attending an SSPX Mass.

Sedevacantism is not “all or nothing”.
Yes it is. Sedevacantism is believing that the Seat of Peter is currently vacant. The SSPX do not believe this. The SSPX regard the Pope as the legitimate successor of Peter, they regard him as the Pope of the Catholic Church. The SSPX are not sedevacantists.

The attendees at our diocesan TLM Mass are actively cooperating in the larger effort for prolife and religious liberty. The attendees at the SSPX chapel are not. That statement strikes me as very prejudicial. You do not know what individual Catholics who attend SSPX Masses do. The SSPX response to the Oklahoma black mass was an example for us all.
 
TMC said:
You may want to ask that of the Church. I am merely reporting what Cardinal Muller has said.
Click to expand...
Cardinal Castrillón indicated that they were not.
“The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.”
Click to expand...
February 8, 2007 interview, in the German Die Tagespost.

Granted, that was in 2007, but what acts have occurred since that that would have changed that status?.
 
Brendan said:
Granted, that was in 2007, but what acts have occurred since that that would have changed that status?.
Click to expand...
The Pope lifted all the excommunications in 2009 so, if anything, it should have improved toward full communion.
 
I think one could reasonably think that Muller was not using “schism” in the technical/legal sense in that quotation. In a broad, colloquial sense, there is certainly a “schism” between the FSSPX and the Catholic Church. There is a division since they are operating as if they are a Catholic institute of consecrated life (of some sort) or even a Church but they are neither.

Dan
 
Brendan_64 said:
(Commenter)“The attendees at our diocesan TLM Mass are actively cooperating in the larger effort for prolife and religious liberty. The attendees at the SSPX chapel are not.”

(Brendan) That statement strikes me as very prejudicial. You do not know what individual Catholics who attend SSPX Masses do. The SSPX response to the Oklahoma black mass was an example for us all.
Click to expand...
The individuals at the SSPX chapel do - as individuals - undoubtedly favor prolife and religious liberty, as do the individuals at the diocesan TLM and other solid parishes. But the diocesan Catholics also cooperate in the larger movement in our region, in which the bishop is the de facto leader; the diocese also coordinates with the national struggles in those areas. The SSPX chapel is too small to impact our region, and they are not cooperating with the diocese prolife and religious liberty. The SSPX is like other prolife groups, like PNCC, Anglican Continuum, and others, none of which participates in the regional struggle with the Diocese or each other, and none of whom have significant activity on the national level. They are effectively passive for the most part.

This split is against the real St Pius X, who was a strong supporter of unified Catholic Action.
 
commenter said:
The individuals at the SSPX chapel do - as individuals - undoubtedly favor prolife and religious liberty, as do the individuals at the diocesan TLM and other solid parishes. But the diocesan Catholics also cooperate in the larger movement in our region, in which the bishop is the de facto leader; the diocese also coordinates with the national struggles in those areas. The SSPX chapel is too small to impact our region, and they are not cooperating with the diocese prolife and religious liberty. The SSPX is like other prolife groups, like PNCC, Anglican Continuum, and others, none of which participates in the regional struggle with the Diocese or each other, and none of whom have significant activity on the national level. They are effectively passive for the most part…
Click to expand...
So you are in effect saying that individuals who are pro-life, but who operate within a larger group of pro-life activists, are in fact the only individuals who are effectively active, while the others are ‘effectively passive’?

So the actions of people as individuals, or as small groups do not count? Only large groups count? That is a shocking thing to say. Do not underestimate the power of even one faithful individual in the face of evil. It is not all about national groups and ‘lobbying power’. We are in the middle of a spiritual battle between good and evil, and one faithful individual can in fact do a lot to counter evil.

The SSPX set a great example to us all in their response to the Oklahoma black mass, despite them being a ‘small group’.
 
commenter said:
The individuals at the SSPX chapel do - as individuals - undoubtedly favor prolife and religious liberty, as do the individuals at the diocesan TLM and other solid parishes. But the diocesan Catholics also cooperate in the larger movement in our region, in which the bishop is the de facto leader; the diocese also coordinates with the national struggles in those areas. The SSPX chapel is too small to impact our region, and they are not cooperating with the diocese prolife and religious liberty. The SSPX is like other prolife groups, like PNCC, Anglican Continuum, and others, none of which participates in the regional struggle with the Diocese or each other, and none of whom have significant activity on the national level. They are effectively passive for the most part.

This split is against the real St Pius X, who was a strong supporter of unified Catholic Action.
Click to expand...
Perhaps mainstream Catholics should get their own house in order first. It is pretty much a safe bet the majority of SSPXs pews did not vote for Obama…
 
Brendan_64 said:
So you are in effect saying that individuals who are pro-life, but who operate within a larger group of pro-life activists, are in fact the only individuals who are effectively active, while the others are ‘effectively passive’?

So the actions of people as individuals, or as small groups do not count? Only large groups count? That is a shocking thing to say. Do not underestimate the power of even one faithful individual in the face of evil. It is not all about national groups and ‘lobbying power’. We are in the middle of a spiritual battle between good and evil, and one faithful individual can in fact do a lot to counter evil.

The SSPX set a great example to us all in their response to the Oklahoma black mass, despite them being a ‘small group’.
Click to expand...
You are right, small groups can make some difference in prolife. I belong to one. Part of my post seems to minimize the value of the prayer and witness of one individual, I was wrong. Yes we are in a spiritual battle; at the moment losing it.

But what about the teaching of St. Pius X on the importance of unified Catholic Action, on regional and national level? What about Pope Pius XI and Pius XII emphasizing the importance of Catholic Action, including support for local bishops under attack by forces of secularism? If prayer is the most important weapon for Religious Liberty, second important (according to Pre-Vatican II popes) is coordinated action - both small groups and regional and national groups.

I didn’t know about the SSPX response to the Black Mass. But the far more common threat is the media undermining local bishops, and thus, Religious Liberty. When the bishops are under political and media attack, does the SSPX support the bishops, stay silent, or criticize the local bishop?
 
commenter said:
You are right, small groups can make some difference in prolife. I belong to one. Part of my post seems to minimize the value of the prayer and witness of one individual, I was wrong. Yes we are in a spiritual battle; at the moment losing it.
Click to expand...
Are you sure of that? It is when defeat seems imminent that victory is closest at hand.
commenter said:
YWhen the bishops are under political and media attack, does the SSPX support the bishops, stay silent, or criticize the local bishop?
Click to expand...
And do such bishops not contribute to their own predicaments? Are bishops to be supported unconditionally and without any criticism, despite their actions at times? Should we all stay silent, just like the ‘old days’? Where has that led us?
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Perhaps mainstream Catholics should get their own house in order first. It is [pretty much a safe bet the majority of SSPXs pews did not vote for Obama…
Click to expand...
  1. Who wants to be a “mainstream Catholic”? The Church calls us to be saints instead.
  2. I believe the TLM is beautiful. It was wrong to ban it for many years, wrong to limit it so harshly since it was reinstated. I pray every parish and school should offer the TLM at least once a year, and it should be available daily in most dioceses. Nothing the SSPX is doing helps make that happen. It pulls people away from the diocesan TLM ministry, which might eventually help that happen.
  3. I don’t criticize the SSPX laity. I suspect many have a better appreciation of liturgy than I do, and a more consistent prayer life. But the laity I know were already devout before they went to SSPX. The SSPX has devout people only because it attracts them. They pray for the Pope, but never for the bishop that pope assigns to our city.
  4. I don’t compare the SSPX laity to mainstream Catholics, I compare them to others like them who attend the diocesan EF, or my parish, which uses the OF but aggressively orthodox in liturgy and doctrine. Unlike the SSPX, my parish attracts many mainstream Catholics, and leads some of them to be more devout. Like the SSPX chapel, my parish and the diocesan EF which I visit influences voters. They do some small group activities for religious liberty. But the battle for religious liberty is mostly at the regional and national level (you mentioned the president). Looking at the regional and national struggle, the diocesan EF Catholics are broadly engaged, much more responsive to St. Pius X’s call to unified Catholic Action than the SSPX.
  5. How do you think the opponents of Religious Liberty regard the impact of groups like the SSPX? Do you think they would welcome more SSPX chapels, drawing people from the Diocese, or do you think they would be glad to see SSPX laity merging into diocesan and national Catholic ministries?
    [/quote]
 
Brendan said:
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
We should all be saints!
I have fought abuses in liturgy, catechetics, sex ed, the prochoice “peace and justice” groups, the New Age, doctrinal indifference. I have also supported many good initiatives in the Catholic Church. Sometimes I, or other good guys, won a victory, or made some improvement. Sometimes I had to move on to another parish. Some new good things are happening in my (far from perfect!) diocese.

The local SSPX chapel includes some people with ideas and passion similar to mine. When they tell me “there are abuses going on!”, I can only say, “uh, yes”.
These are the kinds of people who might, potentially, have made a positive impact:
  1. in opposing abuses in the diocese
  2. in strengthening ministries that could reach the mainstream Catholics
  3. in joining other Catholics in regional and national Religious Liberty campaigns
Those people did not have that impact.
 
commenter said:
Nothing the SSPX is doing helps make that happen. It pulls people away from the diocesan TLM ministry, which might eventually help that happen.
Click to expand...
What exactly is a ‘diocesan TLM ministry’? You don’t need a ‘ministry’ of lay-people to make a TLM happen. All that is required is for individual priests to go ahead and do it, and with Summorum Pontificum individual priests don’t even need to ask permission or inform the diocese. This is down to the clergy, not the laity. The only ministry that can make a TLM happen is the ministry of the ordained priest. It is entirely in the hands of priests. The existence of the SSPX does not detract from other TLMs, in fact their existence raises the profile and awareness of the TLM (which much of the ‘diocesan’ laity don’t even know exists).

So much time and effort is wasted with all the lay ministries for this and lay ministries for that, along with all committees, talking and rushing around that goes with it.
commenter said:
Those people did not have that impact.
Click to expand...
Apart from perhaps, the time they spend in prayer and devotion? You don’t need to be part of a group, a committee, or be rushing around, in order to have an impact. What is more powerful, praying the Rosary, sitting in Adoration of the Eucharist, or rushing around from meeting to meeting?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top